NetWar

Norwegian Rapport On Euro-Jihadist Network (Read it!)

2005-02-24T02:04:00.000+01:00

The FFI, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (Military Intelligence) unclassified two weeks ago a 32-page rapport: “THE SLAYING OF THE DUTCH FILMMAKER (Theo Van Gogh) – Religiously motivated violence or Islamist terrorism in the name of global jihad?”, which concludes that there is indeed an active jihadist terrorist network in the European Union which wants to attack… in Europe. The buzzword id “Global Jihad”. The same agency discovered the al-Qaeda document that alledgedlly served as a blueprint for the Madrid commuter train massacre (See Señor Mañana, a Tale of Truth, al Qaeda, Norwegians and Poles). Below are some excerpts of the rapport and here is the link to the complete doc (link at the bottom of the page)

This report surveys in depth the available open source information about the ritualistic murder of the filmmaker Theo Van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam on November 2, 2004.
The analysis makes the case that the murder of Van Gogh was a terrorist attack implemented by an al-Qaida inspired radical Islamist group within the framework of global jihad, and not an act of religious violence by a lone fanatic. The report also argues that the invasion of Iraq was an important motivational factor for the assassin and his accomplices, in addition to grievances related to the Dutch government’s policies concerning immigration and Dutch counter-terrorism measures

. ………………. …

Investigations have revealed that the assassin belonged to a more or less organized group of individuals subscribing to radical Islamism, and supporting al-Qaida’s ideology of global jihad against the United States and its allies. Political assassinations were also conceived of and planned in these circles. The following analysis outlines and discusses the information about the murder case currently available in open sources

. ……………….

The hypothesis generated from the mass of information about the case surveyed thus far is that the slaying of Theo Van Gogh was an act of global jihad, following the new patterns of Islamist terrorism in Western Europe, and cannot be reduced to the deed of a religious fanatic who was acting on his own.

……………….

This analysis finds that the motivations for the attack appear to be more ideological-political in response to the escalation in the conflict between radical Islamists and the US, Israel and their European allies, than cultural-religious, generated from a provocative short film about the treatment of Muslim women. The release of the short film affected the selection of Van Gogh by the terrorists because it made him visible as a potential target. The paper argues that it is highly plausible that the killer was motivated by the jihadist notion that Muslims in Holland and around the globe are under attack as part of the “global war on terrorism”. The assassination occurred in the context of an escalation in the conflict in Iraq, and intensified counter-terrorism efforts against radical Islamists in the Netherlands. The Van Gogh case, it seems, reveals patterns of recruitment, motivations and modus operandi similar to those addressed in the report “Jihad in Europe”, released by the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment in April 2004.7

……………….

It seems Holland-based Islamist radicals have been relatively active in the European networks. A group headed by the French-Algerian militant Jamal Beghal planned to launch attacks against US targets in Europe. These plans were partly conceived in Holland. A Holland-based group dubbed the “Trabelsi-network” provided fake documents and took part in other support activities for Beghal and his cadre who also planned an attack against the canteen of the US airbase Kleine Brogel in Belgium, near the Dutch border. There have been no reports in open sources that the group of Bouyeri had any direct links to the “Trabelsi-network”. However, one Spain-based militant allegedly had connections in both milieus. Our studies of Islamist terrorist conspiracies in Western Europe suggest the existence of a substantial support-network for jihadist groups in the Netherlands and in Belgium.Apart from the Trabelsi-network there were other incidents that indicated a jihadist “infrastructure” in Holland. For example, in June 2003, Dutch police launched an investigation into a milieu of suspected Islamist militants clustered around a scuba diving school run by the Iraqi-born Kasim Ali. The incident invoked fears that Islamist militants were planning maritime terrorist attacks in Europe.

……………….

The Hofstad Network was involved in activities outside the Netherlands, and established multiple international jihadist connections. The group allegedly maintained contacts with Islamist militants in Morocco, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia. The terrorist suspects who were arrested in October 2003 allegedly exchanged “coded communications” with a Moroccan Islamist militant, imprisoned in Spain, who has been identified as Abdeladim Akoudad aka Naoufel. In Naoufel’s calendar police found encoded telephone numbers of members of the Hofstad Network.54 Naoufel allegedly is a member of a Moroccan Salafist- Jihadist group established by so-called “Afghan Arabs” who returned to Morocco. This group has been dubbed the Moroccan Islamic Fighting Group (GICM or al-Jama`ah al-Islamiyya al- Muqatila bi’l- Maghrib), and it is suspected that members of this group formed the terrorist network that launched the Madrid bombings (M-11). Moroccan authorities want Naoufel because they believe he was involved in the terrorist operation in Casablanca on May 16, 2003.55 Another radical Salafist group formed by jihad veterans with experience from Afghanistan – al-Salafiyya al-Jihadiyya - allegedly staged the Casablanca attacks. However, in an interview in September 2004 a Spanish intelligence official, informed about the investigations of the terrorist attacks in Madrid on 11 March 2004, expressed doubts concerning the utility of differentiating between the various Moroccan Salafist-Jihadist groups, because they seem to share the same ideology and support al-Qaida’s doctrine of global jihad.

……………….

Naoufel maintained ties to prominent jihadist-leaders and people belonging to the “al-Qaida hardcore”.57 Allegedly, he also was frequently in contact with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is seen as the leader of the Islamic resistance in Iraq. Al-Zarqawi is known to have coordinated the activities of at least one active terrorist cell in Western Europe, and he is suspected of coordinating a broader network of Islamist terrorists operating in multiple European countries, but mainly in Italy, France, the UK and Germany. Reportedly, investigators have also been probing a possible relationship between members of the Hofstad Network, and a group of Moroccan militants that has been referred to as “Martyrs for Morocco”, arrested in Madrid in October 2004 and suspected of planning suicide bomb attacks against the Spanish National High Court, and possibly also Santiago Bernabeu soccer stadium (home field of Real Madrid). The terrorist cell reportedly “made necessary arrangements” for acquiring 1000 kgs of the plastic explosive Goma 2 Eco, the explosive that was used in the Madrid bombings. 500 kgs was planned to be used in a suicide attack against the High Court.60 The militants probably planned the attack as a response to increased Spanish counter-terrorism efforts after M-11, and wanted to kill the head of the Spanish terrorism investigations, Judge Baltazar Garson.

Investing in Spain, lights and shadows

2005-02-21T23:04:00.000+01:00

One of the things I do for a living is investment research. Once a month or so, I write rapports on different countries potential risks and rewards for foreign investors. My clients range from corporations to consulting companies and then some sensible business media. I recently (last month) wrote a forecast on France, Spain and Portugal that had some of my customers wondering. My advice regarding Spain was perceived by some as too upbeat since it went against the feel of some of my colleagues. The debate is interesting, so, I have chosen to address some of the criticism using this blog, where I write mostly on politics, since much of the skepticism against my view of Spain’s economic perspectives has to do precisely with politics.

Let me summarize my view of the Spanish economy in the short and medium run. I think that Spain is a good buy, with a couple of qualifications, the main one being that investors should ponder carefully where in Spain they invest and to stay away from a couple of sectors, like the media, which in Spain is too close to pork-barrel politics for comfort.

First of all, regarding where to invest in Spain, I think it is wise to remember that the country is probably the closest to a federal system that you can get in Europe; the Spanish Autonomias (autonomous regions) have a very significant leeway in terms of policy. As a result, there are some very significant differences between the prospects for investment in different regions; that allows for having very good opportunities in some places while in some other spots, like say the Basque Country, no sensible investor would care to set up shop without some very good and imperative reason. The Spanish semi-federal system has another advantage, of the greatest consequence when evaluating risks: the country as a whole can manage to get along with even a quite incompetent central government, since it won't be able to devastate everything everywhere. I would compare Spain to a submarine with lots of watertight compartments… it can afford to have a couple of them full with water and yet remain seaworthy.

To the story belongs, of course, that I remain rather unconvinced about the statesmanship of the Spanish government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero [check these links: Link 1, Link2, Link3, Link4 (specially) and Link 5]. But o

Let’s start from the most interesting regions form investment.

Geographically, the whole Mediterranean coast seems bound to continue its process of “californization”, above all, the Valencia and Murcia regions, (conservative regional governments, no populist tendencies, accelerated growth) and then, of course, the Balearic Islands, the tourist emporium of the Mediterranean. The city of Valencia is the center of a Metropolitan Area (L'Horta) that includes ca. 1.5 million inhabitants and 44 municipalities. Valencia belongs to a Region known as Comunidad Valenciana, which was one of the historical kingdoms from which Spain was established. The ‘Wider Territorial Unit’ (EU lingo) corresponds to the area covered by Metropolitan Area. It is strategically situated on the Mediterranean coast and relies on modern road and rail networks that speed up exchanges with other Spanish and European cities. Through its highways, Valencia is linked with Barcelona, Madrid and Southern Spain. Its airport handles 1.7 million passengers a year and it has also a large port, very well organized.

Andalusia is a much less clear bet: traditionally controlled by a local socialist baron, the administration is pretty unreliable and suffers of chronic patronage. But then, again, for long-term investment projects, particularly in the service sectors, it is a very interesting area. A must to research for services to seniors and residential developments.

Catalonia isn’t the brightest option in the Mediterranean for the time being; costs are high, government is less than predictable. The regional government isn’t exactly the ideal for international investors: a shaky coalition of socialists –indulging sometimes in a fair amount of nationalist populism-, ex-communists and radical nationalists, very hostile to business and harboring a particularly obnoxious brand of anti-Spanish bigotry. Yet the region has an enormous potential in the long run: Barcelona, the capital, is perhaps, the main business center in the Mediterranean outside of Italy. Sooner or later the nationalist rubeola will eventually remit and Catalans will vote some sensible people into office… Right now the outlook is quite negative: an increasing number of mainly manufacturing companies are opting out of the region towards the new members of the European Union in the East, a trend that is being accelerated by the thuggish anti-business rhetoric of some of the people in government, trying to scare companies into not moving out (!). Real estate and tourist infrastructure are two fields that can hold the best potential.

Madrid is from all points of view a very good prospect for investment, probably the best in the short run throughout Spain and definitely in the long run. It is the eighth largest city in Europe –ca 3 M inhabitants in the city itself and around 4,3 M in the conurbation- and is a major financial and economic center, well equipped with advanced services. Madrid is the federal capital of Spain, but it has its own autonomous regional government, with the same prerogatives of the other regions (I fact, the Madrid region’s population is heavily concentrated in the capital’s conurbation, the rest being scattered in a few dozens of small villages). In the last 20 years or so, the Spanish capital has become a global city and of the major business places in Europe. It is superbly communicated with Latin America; in fact, it is the only serious contender with Miami for being the main hub for companies who have a multinational operation in Latin America. On the one hand, Madrid has a crucially important pool of talented qualified workforce from throughout Latin America, on the other, actual costs for conducting business are among the lowest in Europe. The regional government is consistently conservative and business friendly and quite competent.

The only region in Spain where investment can be an outright bad proposition is the Basque region, where there is an endemic problem with ultra-nationalist terrorist activity. The terrorist organization ETA has been, literally, in business since the 60s and maintains itself by means of a sophisticated racketeering operation to extort the so called “revolutionary tax” from local companies. CEOs have been murdered for refusing to pay. The worst part is that the terrorists have a proxy union, present in most companies… including the banking system. They often select their victims among the members of the opposition to the regional government, controlled by relatively moderate nationalist parties in coalition with the local ex-communists. The ideological origin of Basque nationalism is worrisome. The Basque government is rhetorically pro-business but tend to aggressively promote an all-too-rosy picture of the Basque situation and tries offer fiscal incentives to compensate companies for the “revolutionary tax” and connected risks. Ominously enough, the parties in the local government are known to have signed in 1998 a secret pact with the ETA to oppose the central government and they openly subsidize the families of imprisoned terrorists; they also have fiercely opposed the law –quite ineffectual in any event- prohibiting a party considered to be the terrorists’ legal arm. My advice is to keep out of that conundrum.

Beyond the Basque Country, with its old industrialist tradition and location close to the French border, Atlantic Spain doesn’t seem to offer many possibilities for businesses nowadays.

Non-coastal Spain has another area that may offer attention-grabbing opportunities for investors. It is the continuum of three regions, the Spanish Navarre –a very interesting fiscal location- the Rioja en the northwestern part of Aragon, particularly its capital, Zaragoza. It is very strategically located, increasingly well communicated with France and then with the Mediterranean hinterland, both towards Catalonia and Valencia… In fact, Zaragoza has everything going for it becoming a hub city, functionally twined with Toulouse, a main center of French-Spanish exchanges and very probably one of the few places where one can envision a manufacturing venture in Spain…

Lastly I would like to convey a soothing idea about Zapatero and his government, whose negative weight for the economy has been, as I see it, exaggerated by some over-nervous analysts. First of all, the man that the WSJ dubbed “The Accidental President” surely lacks an educated perception of foreign relations and isn’t exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer of the European Union leaders. But, on the other hand, he has had the good sense of understanding that the economy must be left to economists and Pedro Solbes, his minister of Finance, is both an accomplished and an orthodox professional, an old hand of the competent wing of the European Union bureaucracy (yes, there is such a thing), the man who fathered the fiscal responsibility norm.

A cruel saying goes: “There is nothing worse than an idiot with initiative”. Happily enough, Mr. Zapatero has reserved his initiative to the international political arena and social engineering, and in both fields he has left some glowing traces that, I’m sure, will defy the passage of time (I won’t forget his recipe to end terrorism though genre equality). But in economics, thanks God, he has been more hands-off than not.

This and the beneficial effects of the de-centralized Spanish political system will in my view preserve Spain from too much damage during Mr. Zapatero’s time in office.

Another matter, and a very grave one, is the pending menace of an implosion in the very fragile Spanish manufacturing sector, overtly exposed to competition from Asia and Eastern Europe…

For the time being, neither Spain or France are to fall for the German sickness. In fact, I read in today’s Financial Times that business confidence remains low in Germany (95.5 from 96.4 last month) but it's sort of OK in France and Spain. GDP fell in Germany, Italy and the Netherlands in the last quarter of 2004, while in Spain and France it has gone up not-so-timidly (0.8% and 0.7%). I think the FT has got it right. Then, of course, one can argue that those increases both in France and in Spain depend on low interest rates and a real estate bubble. Also Germany and Holland are structurally more dependents on exports…

My personal hunch is that in Europe we are already getting into the crisis and, as usual in this sort of situations, some people will feel the pinch before the others. Spain is in for a pretty bumpy road from 2006 and onwards, particularly after it loses the financial injections from the territorial funds from Brussels in 2007, but it’ll get over it.

Mending Frances

2005-02-21T11:12:00.000+01:00

And so, George W. comes to Paris with the intention of patching things up with the French after four stormy years. The French, who play an out-of-proportion star role in shaping Europe's policy because they are about the only ones trying or caring to do so, less-than-fervently supported by German chancellor Schroeder, that’s true. Chirac and Schroeder, two of a kind, are sort of Europe by default, now that Aznar isn’t there, Berlusconi acts like he wasn’t there and Blair, indeed, is somewhere else. If one sees Europe through the French-German eye-glasses, the European Union's mission would seem to be playing an increasingly important role in international affairs. A mission that would include acting as a moral check and balance of American unilateralism, at least if you want to put it in the terms dear to Jacques Honest Chirac, the man who needs to be president of France to stay out of jail.

I have the hunch that the visit won't be a walk in the Luxembourg Garden but it’ll turn out to be a success.

While America has achieved a lot by itself in Iraq and elsewhere, the French elite isn’t near admitting that its position in the Middle East hasn’t been exactly candid regarding its motivations. Indeed, many a French banker and a cohort of CEOs saw the toppling of Saddam Hussein as a major catastrophe. In the biggest embezzlement in History, the UN controlled oil-for-food program, guess twice who did the banking, furnished a fair share of overprized goods and paid juicy bribes to the Bagdad chosen few…

But then, to put it in realistic (or cynical) terms, toppled tyrants living in a jail cell seldom make good business partners. Instead, a dollar/euro parity of 1.30 really hurts European exports, winemakers in Bordeaux are desperately in need of getting back to the US market, where their product has been badly battered by anti-French sentiment and decent wines from Chile, Australia and California at a fraction of the price. And these are just two examples among many of what may entice Honest Jacques into giving a warm hospitable welcome to Re-elected George W. and accepting to play the great soul who accepts the Texan's niceties to forget the past and look into the (hopefully bright) future.

But then, there are other less distinct factors playing for the French and the Americans getting a fresh starts of sorts.

On the international scene, I think that the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, allegedly because of his opposition to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, will prompt a rapprochement. The United States and France, co-sponsors of a U.N. resolution to rid Lebanon of Syrian troops, want a foreign-led investigation into the assassination. France’s stance on this one annoyed very much the Syrians… And rumors in Paris state that the (generally very competent) French counter-terrorist task force has been pretty busy since de Hariri murder.

And then, on the domestic French front there is the ever felt and never seen presence of Nicolas Sarkozy, the most popular politician in France. He's very competent and has become Chirac’s arch-rival. Sarkozy, who is openly pro-Atlantist, has been artfully lobbying in the United States and doesn’t hide his ambition to run for the presidency. To contain him, Chirac has to give up his natural inclination for arrogance and anti-American rhetoric.

(Few) Spaniards Vote on EU Const. , French Worries after Murder of Hariri, and the Academic Cost of the War on Terror

2005-02-21T01:28:00.000+01:00

Well, at last Spaniards had their vote on the European Constitution to be. How could I put it? Say that many more Iraqis defied the terrorists and went to vote on January 30 than Spaniards braved the rain to go to say whether they thought it a good idea to make into law the constitutional treaty.

The text had been drafted by a deep-blue-ribbon as-hoc comittee presided by former French President Giscard d'Estaign. All in all, 42% of the Spanish voters cared to do their civil duty (the lowest in any Spanish vote since democracy was restored following the death of Gen. Francisco Franco in 1975) and 76% of them said that it was perhaps a good idea. Which says a lot about the Spaniards' faith in their politikos' judgement, since several surveys suggest that over 90% of the voters hadn't cared to give even a perfunctory glance at the draft... Both of Spain's major parties back the charter.

Here in France, politicians and law enforcement agencies, more than ordinary citizens, rightfully worry now that terrorists can strike again in Europe and perhaps in France. Many think that the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri is just the announcement of things to come; more than probably, he was killed because of his opposition to the continuing Syrian occupation of his land that had motivated him to ask France and the US to pass a a resolution at the UN against it.

After the election in Iraq the Syrian regime's old guard is very worried. After all, if the Sunni overclass in Iraq was 20% of the population, their own Alawite elite that monopolizes government and economic power in Syria is no more than 12%... They are positive that democracy for the Middle East isn't a good idea, not in Iraq, not in Lebanon and most definitely, not in Syria.

One telling statistic: More than 30 percent of all Ph.D. recipients in U.S. science and mathematics programs are foreigners. Many of them stay in the country upon completing their degrees. But then, added counter-terrorist security has made it an ordeal to obtain student visas or even to attend academic conferences in the United States. International applications to U.S. graduate programs have declined by roughly a third in the last year. Security doesn't come cheap.

BRIAN DUNN, de The Dignified Rant, sobre el referéndum español (Vía BarcePundit):

It looks like it will be a little over 40% turnout with the pro-constitution
side winning handily. Given the nearly 60% turnout in Iraq without the deployment of Spanish troops to protect the voters, the presence of Spanish troops is not a predictor of voter turnout.

Brian Dunn, the most insightful Ranter of the Internet

Omar, Welcome to the Pajamas Brigade!"

2005-02-18T18:34:00.000+01:00

Next time some one pretends that Aljazeera is just a normal news outfit, just tell him/her about this poll. I mean, is there anything to add?

Look at the Al-Jazeera's idea of a fair Internet polling:

This perl was discovered by Omar, from IRAQ THE MODEL , while in his pajamas, of course.

Let me quote a little bit from these two brothers in Bagdad for the benefit of dried out bloggers:

The Magic of Pajamas.
Well I think I titled this post with the word pajamas because the connection between blogging and pajamas has been a mystery for me. Of course I know what the theory says regarding this connection but I wasn't sure of the mechanism in which they relate to each other. Until this afternoon.This may not seem like a regular ITM post and I think that's the idea!
I was talking to Mohammed an hour ago and we both were feeling depressed because of the declining quality and quantity of posts on our blog and the deficiency of ideas for good posts that we're currently suffering from. I don't know whether you agree with us but we here can feel it.Then he suddenly said laughing "go wear your pajamas, maybe this will inspire you to write something"!
Well, frankly speaking it did and once I went into my pajamas I felt a strange motivation for writing; writing anything, at least it encouraged me to write this stupid conversation between two bored brothers drinking tea and smoking cigarettes in the afternoon.I'm not claiming that my pajamas have magic in them but you know what? They do make a change!

By the way, Iraq, the Model is a very interesting blog... And their analysis of the Aljazeera poll is well, very good, full of common sense.

Very Good Article by Fouad Ajami

2005-02-18T03:06:00.000+01:00

Ajami is a (very good)professor at Johns Hopkins University. He just published in the WSJ a quite thougtful article on Rafik Hariri that I strongly recommend...

It starts:

Rafiq Hariri, who was struck down on Monday by a huge car bomb on Beirut's seafront, was the unlikeliest of martyrs for the cause of Lebanon's independence. He had risen from the obscurity and poverty of Sidon--on Lebanon's coast--to the upper reaches of Lebanese and Arab society, largely through the patronage of the House of Saud and the inner dealings of Arab rulers and courtiers. A former prime minister of Lebanon, he wasn't particularly articulate, or given to the call of political causes. He believed in the power of wealth and of pragmatism, and saw Lebanon's mission in the time-honored way of Sidon's Phoenician heritage: commerce and trade, banking and tourism. Over two long decades in the political game, he had made his accommodation with
Syrian power. He no doubt paid off Syrian intelligence operatives and officers, cut their sons and daughters and wives into business deals, did what he could for the restoration of his battered country, while staying on the safe side of Syria's hegemony in Lebanon...
And HERE IS THE LINK TO THE WHOLE ARTICLE

Read this article by Michael Young in Beirut's Daily Star

With friends like that...

2005-02-16T23:29:00.000+01:00

God and the people who read this blog know that Jacques Chirac isn’t my Valentine. Yet, this time I can only agree with him: he has forcefully called for an international investigation on who (I would add why) murdered Rafik Hariri. Then he flew into Beirut this morning, against the advice of his ministers, to attend Hariri’s funeral. Bravo, Jacques!

The Syrian ambassador in Paris, Siba Nasser, hasn’t wasted much time in going on the record on Radio Europe 1, to say what?, that of course, her government hadn’t had anything to do with the murder (how could people think such a preposterous thing?, the Syrian regime, come on!) and then, she went on to say that Syria, of course (again), was ready to accept such an international investigation if –now, read carefully- if the Lebanese government accepts it.

The lady went on to say that it was possible that tomorrow the Lebanese would ask some neutral countries, like the European countries, to help them to search for indicia… (Il se peut que demain les Libanais demandent à des pays neutres comme des pays européens de les aider à retrouver des indices.) She also said that "Hariri was a great friend of Syria" ! (With friends like that, did Hariri need enemies?)
Now, the word « neutral » in that context implies that there is a war going on, that you are a part of it and that you consider the Europeans to be neutral… who is the enemy? The United States?

Searching in the arcane of the Net, I think these three links are very interesting:

June 2001: Can Syria Put the Lebanese Regime Together Again?

May 2004 : The Bombing in Damascus: Ten Reasons to Doubt Syria's Claim

July 2004 : The US and France Tip the Scale in Lebanon's Power Struggle

The Hariri Murder... One Too Many?

2005-02-16T00:43:00.000+01:00

A 400 kg. bomb has killed Rafik Hariri. One of the few truly civilized leaders in the Middle east.

Writing obituaries has never been my favorite genre, but Rafik Hariri is, was, even for Middle East standards, one of the most intriguing characters of that intriguing part of the world. In my perception, he was first a Levantine, then a bazaar kingpin, then an Arab baron (if you allow me the boutade), a subtle French notable and somewhere, why, yes, a secular Muslim who didn’t believe much in mullahs or imams but who did indeed believe in God and human solidarity. The son of a grocer and farmer in Sidon, he made a fortune by being superhumanly insightful and brilliant.

He got into politics as a tool for the Syrian occupation and ended as an opposition leader, trying to get the Syrians out and I am convinced that last struggle was the ultimate reason why he was murdered. The nearest cause at hand is the coming election ; had he lived, he might have expected to win with a large majority in the forthcoming Lebanese general elections. Since after Iraq it has become very difficult to rig an election in the region, they had to kill him

Quod prodest? Who is to benefit from the death of this extraordinary man? Well, back in October I wrote a post (The French Hostages & The Syrian Connection) in which I echoed what was already more than a rumor here in Paris: Syria was behind the kidnapping of two French reporters in Iraq, because the Damascus regime was irked by the passing of US sponsored 1557 resolution at the UN, calling for Syria to end its occupation of Lebanon. Hariri had engineered that resolution, and got away with it because he knew well or rather was a good friend of both George W. Bush and Jacques Chirac, no small feat.

I speculated at that time: The good news is that the hostages could be now closer to being set free, since France could use the very traditional diplomatic channels between states to put some pressure on Damascus. The bad news is that, in all cases, if the Syrian connection is proved, France will have to reconsider all its policy in the Middle East, based on appeasement, siding with Arafat in the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, and refusing to acknowledge the very existence of “rogue states”. An even more ominous scenario would be that the captors, to prevent exposure, decided to assassinate the hostages.
…
According to some versions, president Chirac was informed of the Syrian connection by his friend, the Lebanese primer minister Rafik Hariri.

Well, the hostages weren’t killed. Hariri was.

Already many people in Paris felt that something was very wrong when the two journalists were eventually set free by their captors and without anybody acknowledging publicly why they had been kidnapped in the first place –thinking about the rabidly anti-war position of the French government- and even less what had won their release. Nor do we know now why yet another French reporter, a celeb leftist woman writer for Libération, consitently against yankee imperialism, has been kidnapped one month ago in Bagdad and is still being held captive.

Now, the people who had Hariri killed used about 400 kg (ca 900 pounds) of high-grade explosive. Hardly the deed of an amateur…

The question now isn’t so much why Damascus wanted Hariri dead. The question is why now. My guess is the Lebanese election. The Syrian regime just can't afford a democratic election in Lebanon...

In any event, I perceive Hariri’s murder as a challenge to Washington and a warning to Paris. The problem with autocratic rogue regimes is that at a given moment they all seem to lose their mind. It can be rightly said that Hariri is yet another victim in the struggle between tyrants and democracy.

By the way, I am really sorry too. I liked the man.

Don't miss this very interesting (and telling) story by SAM F. GHATTAS (AP)

Why do I find Ghattas' story telling? Because of this paragraph:

At Hariri's Beirut residence Tuesday, long lines of mourners offered condolences to the family. Dignitaries also arrived to pay their respects,including Syrian Vice President Abdul-Halim Khaddam, a longtime friend; Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos; and Hariri's political ally, Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir, head of the Maronite Catholic Church.

To read that Vice-President Abdul-Halim Khaddam was "a longtime friend" of Rafik Hariri leaves me stubbornly looking through my window at the heavy clouds hovering over Paris.

There is indeed a tradition in mob circles to send the biggest floral wreath to the victim’s funeral…

And then why, the presence of the self-styled Spanish minister for foreign affairs makes me shudder. Don't miss Khalid's comment below.

If you read French, don't miss Alexandre Adler's piece on the Hariri murder in today's Figaro!

Excerpt:

Ce sont ces mêmes hommes – parmi lesquels figurent en bonne place les vieux associés sunnites d'Assad père : Farouk Chareh, le ministre des Affaires étrangères, et Abdel-Halim Khaddam, le vice-président de la République –, qui ont jeté toute leur énergie dans le soutien à l'insurrection irakienne, fournissant notamment à al-Zarqaoui et à une branche très prosaoudienne d'al-Qaida, le gîte et le couvert.

Khalid, someone agrees with you... I like Adler. His piece is until now the best and most credible one of all that I have read on this subject.

The Land of the Amiable Tyranny (1) The Basque Conundrum Revisited

2005-02-15T00:27:00.000+01:00

Preamble

It’s been a while since I first had the idea of writing about the Basque Conundrum.

I felt it was an interesting subject. After all, terrorist groups in Western Europe are nowadays almost exclusively Islamic. What justifies the “almost” is precisely the murky Basque separatist group ETA (acronym of Basque Fatherland and Separation in the Basque language).

So I started to gather material and tried to sort it out in order to provide a sensible, well-thought-out vision of why the word Basque has become to terrorism what Sicilian has long been to organized crime: an unfair stereotype supported by a terrible factual reality.

The ETA has been active for at least 4 decades since it was launched in 60s with the support of the Communist block and is responsible for many hundreds of killings in the tiny Basque Country (pop.ca. 2 M, about the size of the San Francisco area…). In the last ten years, Basque terrorists have gradually distanced themselves from their traditional Marxist origins and taken on an ideology of ethnical solidarity, inching progressively closer and closer to traditional Basque irredentism, largely based on unsullied lineage (no Jews, no Arabs, no dark-haired Southerners), blood groups, racial angles and the whole paraphernalia of 19th century Central European racialism, the sort of ideology you usually find among supporters of your run-of-the-mill Aryan Nation type of assortment.

I found the subject pretty manifold, too labyrinthine to explain for outsiders. I really felt that because of my Spanish roots I was too close to the trees to describe the forest for, say, someone from Singapore. I felt I needed some outside help and I found it via Coby Lubliners, a scientist at Berkeley by trade and a marvelous political observer and essay writer. So, I secured his permission to quote extensively from his essay “Mailbombs and Car Bombs: the Basque Conundrum” (Find here the whole essay, via Montmartre) to provide a sensible background for my own update on the situation, which I will give in a coming post. Let me just say that it is now my opinion that the Basque Country constitutes the most worrisome situation from a human rights point of view throughout Western Europe. The very last shelter (for the time being) of scientific racialism in the developed world, the one spot in the European Union where people are openly discriminated against because of their ethnical origins, often by local public servants.

Excerpts from “Mailbombs and Car Bombs: the Basque Conundrum” by Coby Lubliners (Find here the whole essay, via Montmartre)

"Euskal Herria" is the name by which Basque nationalists call the greater Basque Country, whose independence from Spain and France they seek. What provoked the mailbombing (against a nationalist web site) was outrage over the brutal killing--by the ultranationalist terrorist organization ETA--of a non-nationalist municipal councilor named Miguel Ángel Blanco in the Basque town of Ermua, along with a sense that the Web site, while not managed by ETA, was sympathetic to it. In the wake of the killing and the massive protests that it provoked, within the Basque Country and without, ETA declared a "truce," which it maintained for a year and a half, until, on January 21, 2000, a car bomb (ETA's favorite weapon) in Madrid killed an army officer, also named Blanco (blanco, incidentally, means 'target' in Spanish).

Basque nationalists are a definite minority in Euskal Herria. Even in the Basque Country in the narrower sense, that is, the Basque Autonomous Community (formerly the Basque Provinces) of Spain--which covers only about a third of the territory claimed by the nationalists)--they constitute at most half the population; in the Spanish Province of Navarre (the historic heartland of Basquedom) and in the French Basque region they are far fewer than that. That the Basque Autonomous Government has been headed, since its inception in 1979, by the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV)--the moderate wing of nationalism--is due largely to the division of the non-nationalists between socialists, radical leftists, and conservatives.

The PNV's moderation is expressed, above all, by its opposition to violence. During most of the 1980s and 1990s it kept its distance from ETA by not explicitly advocating independence, only a vague "self-determination," as well as by vigorously claiming all the advantages of the special tax status that the Spanish Constitution gives the Basque Country and Navarre, a status that has led the region from post-industrial depression to a renewed prosperity symbolized by the Bilbao Guggenheim Museum.

But the recent ETA truce led the PNV's leaders to believe that the association between full separatism and violence was no longer valid, and they committed themselves to joining forces for independence with ETA's political arm, Herri Batasuna (which now uses the name Euskal Herritarrok as a political party), and with a smaller moderate party, a PNV offshoot named Eusko Alkartasuna. Now, with the truce broken, only the next elections will tell what political price the PNV will have to pay for its gamble [Note.- The essay was written in 2000 JAH].

The Basque self-styled "national liberation movement" represented by ETA, which sprang up in the 1960s, was consciously modeled on the one of Northern Ireland, with the IRA as the armed branch and Sinn Féin as the political one. What the two have in common is not only organization but an ethnically based ideology, something that sets them apart from other nationalist movements in the West.

Civic and ethnic nationalism

Over the past century it has generally been recognized by political thinkers, especially German and British ones, that there is a drastic difference between East (eastern Europe and most of Asia) and West (western Europe and the territories settled by its emigrants) in what is meant by a nation. The Austrian churchman, political scientist and statesman Ignaz Seipel went so far as to assert that "Europe is divided by a line which separates two entirely different conceptions of the idea of the 'Nation.' On one side of the line are the peoples for whom the state is everything, and who also understand national sentiment as a great enthusiasm for the state to which they, of their own free will, belong. On the other side of that line of demarcation, the sentiment of civilization, of a common tongue and a common origin, preponderates."

Various terms have been used for the two concepts: "state nation" and "cultural nation" (F. Meinecke), "political" and "personal" nation (C. A. Macartney), "territorial or civic" and "ethnic" nation (A. D. Smith). Smith takes pains to label the former as "of course, a peculiarly Western conception of the nation." His avoidance of a reference to a state (which is characteristic of German thinkers on the subject, from F. J. Neumann to Jürgen Habermas) shows an awareness of Western communities that define themselves as nations on the basis of a territory which does not necessarily constitute a sovereign state (whether or not they may aspire to one): Scotland, Québec, Catalonia, Corsica, the Faeroes... And the nationalist movements of these communities are generally quite explicit in rejecting an ethnic basis for their aspirations. A spokesman for the Scottish National Party, for example, has said flatly: "Ours is a civic nationalism, based on historic borders rather than ethnic blood rights." The Parti Québécois proclaims Quebec to be "a pluralistic society," and guarantees that under sovereignty the language rights of les Québécoises et Québécois de langue anglaise will be fully protected. And in Corsica, the Regional Assembly has defined "the Corsican people" (le peuple corse) as "a living historical and cultural community comprising all those who are Corsicans by origin and Corsicans by adoption."
It is probably no coincidence that these nationalist movements have been, unlike their ethnic counterparts in the East, largely nonviolent, with the possible exception of Corsica. For it's quite a different matter to regard your neighbor, even if he speaks a different language or practices a different religion, as a member of your nation, and to see him as one of "the others" (think Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Indonesia...).

The exception of Corsica is, in fact, more apparent than real. The violence of the Corsican National Liberation Front (FLNC) has been, in the words of the Corsican historian R. Caratini, "mainly strategic," its purpose being more to attract attention to the island's plight than to terrorize. "Homicidal violence is extremely rare," he writes, "and its political character is debatable and debated." Indeed, what violence there is (as another Corsican, G. X. Culioli, has written) cannot be separated from the lawlessness that has been endemic on the island for centuries, with bloody conflicts between north and south and among various mafia-type organizations. ....In the Spanish Basque region too, what had been a civic movement, led by the thoroughly Hispanicized urban bourgeoisie and called fuerismo, in defense of the fueros (the royal charters by which the Basque Provinces and Navarre enjoyed a degree of autonomy unlike any other province, and which were threatened by the increasing centralization in Madrid), was transformed into an ethnic one by a scion of that bourgeoisie named Sabino Arana.

Arana was a devout Catholic who was unhappy with the way the fueros had evolved into purely economic entitlements (conciertos económicos)--which, as I mentioned above, are maintained in the present Spanish Constitution--that led to a rapid industrialization of the region and the consequent immigration of large numbers of maketos (non-Basques). It was in reaction to the overly materialistic (in his view) fuerismo that in 1897 he founded the PNV, and its chief goal was the independence of the "Basque race" in its homeland. The mythology surrounding the racial notion of Basque identity is largely Arana's creation.

The primordial symbol of this identity is, of course, the Basque language--which is not related to any other--but since a great many Basques, especially urban ones like Arana himself, had lost the actual use of their language, a different identifying badge had to be found. It was to be the family name, a "true" Basque being one among whose forebears at least four Basque surnames could be found. (When Arana fell in love with an illiterate peasant girl name Nikole Achica-Allende, what concerned him was not their obvious social difference but the clearly Spanish "Allende" part of her family name, which he found to his joy, after thoroughly combing her parish records, to be merely a recent addition intended to distinguish her family--impeccably Basque--from another Achica family.) Other supposedly singular aspects of the race have been adduced by the ideologues of Basque nationalism, for example blood type (by the PNV's current leader, Xabier Arzalluz) or brain size.

Basque and Spanish politics

In purely political terms, the PNV is of the Christian Democratic persuasion, while ETA and its affiliates call themselves socialist. The PNV has, moreover, oscillated throughout the 20th century (since Arana's death in 1903) between the goals of independence and of economically advantageous autonomy within Spain, including support of whichever party rules in Madrid in exchange for concessions (a deal that has been eagerly embraced by both socialists and conservatives). To ETA, however, the latter orientation is treasonous, and whenever it has prevailed, the PNV has not been spared from ETA's violence. Indeed, many cynical observers attribute to self-protection the PNV's latest swing toward independence.

The Land of the Amiable Tyranny (2)
Life, Death, Bigotry and Gastronomy

The Land of the Amiable Tyranny (3)
From Bilbao to Boise, Idaho

Spanish MOD Secret Trip to Meet Venezuelan Supremo. Strange…

2005-02-03T20:51:00.000+01:00

NEWS SERVER

The Spanish government of señor Zapatero is a true can of worms. Now, its trouble Minister of Defense, Jose Bono, a self-styled populist, didn’t find anything better to do that indulging into a secret visit to the Venezuelan Supremo Hugo Chavez in his Caracas court. News of the eventually leaked to the Spanish press.

Why? What had they to talk about that wasn’t to be publicly acknowledged?

[The image here doesn't belong to the secret visit, it was taken in Toledo during the Supremo's visit to Spain]

Rumors in Madrid have it that the Spaniard eagerly wanted to sell weapons to Chavez, who is just now looking for trouble with neighboring Colombia by letting the (Colombian) narcoguerrilla to use Venezuela as a sanctuary when on the run. In fact, one of the first decisions of Mr. Zapatero upon inauguration was to cancel the (hugue) sale of Spanish armored vehicles to Colombia… just to show what side are they on? I tend to believe that the cancallation wasn't a coincidence.

The Colombian government isn’t amused. They fear that the Spanish weapons sold to the Venezuelan strongman might, just might, find their way to the FARC narcoguerrilla.

Euro Media: The Other Losers in Iraq

2005-02-01T13:24:00.000+01:00

The people in Iraq were the big winners on their election last Sunday and the European media were among the obvious losers, along with Zarqawi and his suicide bombers.

Despite all the gloom-and-doom reporting about Iraq, and the (self-serving) calls to adjourn the election, it can now be argued that President Bush's strategy to stay the course worked beyond most people’s expectations, including my own. It will be ludicrous for anyone to insist, in the face of what happened on January 30, that they were against the Allied intervention ot of love and concern for the people in Iraq. Thanks to that intervention they were allowed to vote and vote they did.

Media coverage in Europe, with its implacable highlighting on violence and bad news out of Iraq, had suggested that the election was going to be a calamity. The terrorists were on the march, coalition troops couldn't provide security, and Iraqi forces weren’t willing or able to protect voters.

Happily enough, Iraqis who turned out to vote must not have been watching French or Spanish TV. If they had, they would have seen local pundits saying that the Iraqi election was not fully legitimate because some people from terrorist-infested areas might not go to the polls after all. It was another one demoralizing message after the other. They just sounded like they wanted the election in Iraq to fail someway, somehow, they wanted it to be an avengement of their rout, their embarrassment, in the US presidential election three months ago.

Iraqis must also not read Le Monde, which had mused about how the US administration had "foolishly" passed up opportunities to postpone the election. The Spanish press bluntly criticized Bush for "discrediting democracy" in the Middle East.

One day after the election, they all paid (very tight) lip service to the turnout that appeared that "may have exceeded the most optimistic predictions." For one day or so at least, because almost immediately, without the tally being even roughly estimated, they produced a new mantra about the election not being legitimate because of low turn-out in the Sunni areas of the country.

This remarkably stupid coverage won’t pay any tribute to the U.S. and allied troops –including a dozen or so Spaniards- who fought and died to make that triumph of democracy possible. Le Monde’s headline was telling of that repugnance to recognize that a success had taken place: “The relative success of the election etc.” Of course, there weren’t any French reporters in Iraq to describe how impressed they were by the Iraqi turnout. They were all safely covering the election from Amman from where they could remorselessly ignore the reality that was unfolding before their eyes (on the TV screens at the hotels).

The French and Spanish people are being misled by a substantial share of the local media. Before the election, Iraq was depicted as a hopeless case, and doomsday sayers mumbled about how insensible it was not to postpone (at the very least) the election. Now they stop short of saying that the millions of Iraqis who braved the terrorists’ threats were just paid actors who were out there to vote on orders to discredit Le Monde and El Pais.

But despite all their efforts, thanks to the Iraqi voter turnout the European public was given a breathtaking glimpse into the real situation on the ground. Into the truth, if you prefer. They may wonder why had this "other Iraq" been ignored for so long? Why had the news been so tilted in favor of the terrorists?

Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction weren’t found, but the election in Iraq makes it impossible to deny the reality of the US and its allies having freed the Iraqi people from tyranny. As undeniable as the worrying reality of an ideology driven unreliable Euro media. Now Europeans can see for themselves that the media were in fact misleading them about the real state of mind of the Iraqis.

The sixty-four-thousand-dollar questions Europeans should put to their media include:

Why didn’t you tell us that Iraqis wanted so badly a democratic government?

Why did you always focus on the death and destruction and never on the Iraqi craving for democratic freedom?

Why did you always put the emphasis on the terrorist "insurgents" and not the value of the mission to bring freedom to the people of Iraq?

Don't expect any answers from Euro media soon.

It's now obvious that the Iraqis could have put the very same questions to the very same people.

Señor Mañana, a Tale of Truth, al Qaeda, Norwegians and Poles

2004-12-21T01:42:00.000+01:00

I have now a couple of assignments in Spain, so excuse me if I become a little bit mono-thematic. I'm sort of becoming a Zapapundit. God help me.

This post is dedicated to Diplomad, Dear Barcepundit and, very specially, to André Breton [ Link 2 on André Breton ] . It has a serious, well, sort of, first half. And then a delirious second half on a memorable diplomatic gaffe (here's to you, André).

I mean, I never had an enormous respect for Spanish prime minister JLR Zapatero’s intellectual capabilities. And yes, I have been around long enough to know that systematically taking a politician’s word at face value is a sure receipt for journalistic catastrophe. But I really jumped off my seat, listening to Señor Mañana in front of the self-styled parliamentary Committee on the terrorist attacks in Madrid last March 11.

He was there trying to outperform his predecessor, Jose María Aznar, and, among other groovy things, he contributed this pearl to the thick Book of Political Verbal Atrocities:

He ardently condemned the notion, which he acknoledged was held in some parts of the world, that Spain surrendered to terrorism when it voted him into office three days after the bombings.

"It is inconceivable that someone can imagine that the citizens of Spain bowed to the wishes of terrorists," he said.

"It is brutal, it is unacceptable," Zapatero stressed, "to call a brave people cowards."

A pity that he forgot to mention this 42-page document called "Jihadi Iraq, Hopes and Dangers" found on radical islamist websites by researchers at the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment (FFI). [If you speak Arabic, here you heve the original]

Let me quote the Brynjar Lia and Thomas Hegghamme, the Norwegian analysts, summarizing the document:

The document then analyses three countries (Britain, Spain and Poland) in depth, with a view to identifying the weakest link or the domino piece most likely to fall first. The author provides a surprisingly informed and nuanced analysis of the domestic political map in each country. He argues that each country will react differently to violent attacks against its forces because of domestic political factors:

Poland, for example, is unlikely to withdraw from the coalition because there is political consensus on foreign policy, and the country has a very high tolerance for human casualties.

Britain is easier to force out of Iraq, because the popular opposition to the war and the occupation is so high. However, the author estimates that Britain will only withdraw from Iraq in one of two cases: either if Britain suffers significant human casualties in Iraq or if Spain and Italy withdraws first.

Spain on the other hand is very vulnerable to attacks on its forces, primarily because public opposition to the war is almost total, and the government is virtually on its own on this issue. The author therefore identifies Spain as the weakest link in the coalition.”

The last sentences of al Qaeda’s remarkable analysis of the Spanish political situation were anything but uninteresting for a man in charge of governing Spain after Aznar:

"We think that the Spanish government could not tolerate more than two, maximum three blows, after which it will have to withdraw as a result of popular pressure. If its troops still remain in Iraq after these blows, then the victory of the Socialist Party is almost secured, and the withdrawal of the Spanish forces will be on its electoral programme.
Lastly, we are emphasize that a withdrawal of the Spanish or Italian forces from Iraq would put huge pressure on the British presence (in Iraq), a pressure that Toni Blair might not be able to withstand, and hence the domino tiles would fall quickly. Yet, the basic problem of making the first tile fall still remains."

Now, one can wonder why, how, through which particular channels, did the terrorists get the news that allowed them to write “the withdrawal of the Spanish forces will be on its electoral programme.” Could it be thinkable that some of the good-willed Socialists who participated in the anti-war agitation in Spain, (more than probably profusely funded by Saddam Hussein through the oil-for-food scam), had some idea about Mr. Zapatero’s electoral promises? Could it?

Perhaps Mr. Zapatero believes his own words and he can’t conceive “that someone can imagine that the citizens of Spain” could bow to the wishes of terrorists, but fact is that the al Qaeda analysts not only conceived it but made their point rather brilliantly and, well, their assessment that “victory of the Socialist Party is almost secured” proved very right two hundred dead Spaniards later…

I don’t know if anyone has reckoned the fact that the only one electoral promise that Mr. Zapatero has scrupulously fulfilled was to withdraw the Spanish troops from Iraq a lot faster than decorum advised. Well, you can’t make a silk purse out of sow’s ear… He was supposed (before the attacks, that is) to lose the election, so nobody in the Socialist Party really cared to come up with a normally witted and competent candidate.

The Polish Non Adventure of Señor Mañana

Talk about a newsmaker. He never rests. He now has irked the Poles, who in fact were already pretty heated at him since his heroic withdrawal from Iraq: the Spanish troops were under Polish command and he didn’t care to warn them in advance that he was letting them down.

Now, the day after his appearance in the Spanish parliament he was due in Warsaw to meet with the Polish PM, Marek Belka. But he felt exhausted after his mastery lesson in political systematic thought. So he just decided to tell Mr. Belka that please, excuse me, I’m not going. Just a little bit tired, you know… And he did that four and a half hours prior to his scheduled arrival to Warsaw, with the honor guard already in order of review. A prowess in diplomatic frankness…

PM Marek Belka Waiting for Zapatero

The Poles were astounded. But they became outright flabbergasted, when someone checked out the press kit that the Spanish ministry of Foreign Affairs had distributed to the Spanish reporters who were to cover the talks (You know, some nosey-newsy reporter curious about what those caballeros may know about us). In the kit, it was (still is) said that Señor Zapatero is (well, was) to meet with Prime Minister Leszek Millar. Biography and all. The only detail was that Mr. Miller (not Millar) isn't the prime minister any longer, the one now, happily in office since May, is Mr. Belka. Mr. Belka wasn't amused.

Polish humor sometimes reminds of English humor, only with that melancholic touch that comes from the subtle differences from Scotch to Wyborowa vodka. A Polish minister confided to journalists that knowing the Spanish Prime Minister’s record he wasn’t that surprised that Mr. Zapatero didn’t know who he was going to meet in Poland as much as of the fact that he didn’t want to meet him. Verbatim, via a friend from Gazeta Wyborcza.

To the story does belong that Mr. Belka can comfort himself with the thought that he isn’t the first one who has been left there waiting for señor Zapatero. The list grows: in June he left without warning or explanation the Istambul summit (insiders said it was because George W. didn’t want to meet him), in October it was the turn of the President of Portugal (Zapatero decided without warning to attend a party meeting instead), in November a trip to Moscow was cancelled without explanation (Putin had already the caviar on the ice) and when the Spaniard finally got himself on the plane he had Putin waiting one hour for him in the Russian winter.

The rumor mill in Madrid pretends that Señor Mañana panics when he’s to meet with someone he thinks doen’t like him or if he expects the conversation to be unpleasant…

Now, class… who’s the daftest politiko in Europe? The answer, mañana.

Niños hambrientos: La Hipocresía Europea

2004-12-19T01:18:00.000+01:00

I just read a very elegant, pertinent and relevant post at Blog SE, a Swedish blog edited by an American in Sweden. It's about the last UNICEF rapport on children going hungry... it's in English and very good, so may read it there. I'll write this entry about it in Spanish because I think that this topic is particularly absent from the debate in señor Mañana-Zapatero's mediocre Spain...

Bueno, la ONU, esa cueva de Ali Baba publicó el día 8 un informe según el cual el hambre en el mundo ha crecido. El hambre crónica en términos absolutos (en porcentaje de la población, de hecho, decrece) ha aumentado desde 1996.

El blogger sueco blog.se cuenta que una burócrata de la ONU entrevistada en la radio sueca corrió a achacar el problema a que la ayuda no es suficiente. Y añade Blogse: "Naturalmente, no mencionó que la miseria está ocasionada por maniacos genocidas y dictadorzuelos gobernando en demasiados países y que su organización es parte del problema",

Porque la ministro de agricultura sueca, cuando le preguntaron por las causas del hambre en el tercer Mundo identificó como causa mayor el proteccionismo de la Unión Europea en favor de sus agricultores.

A la Unión Europea le importa un bledo arruinar a los granjeros africanos para que los agricultores españoles, franceses etc. puedan seguir viviendo en un 50% de sus ingresos de la subvención. Luego, por supuesto, se mandan los excedentes en forma de dumping al Tercer Mundo y la factura a los contribuyentes europeos que la pagan con sus impuestos y a los niños de los países en desarrollo que la pagan con sus vidas.

No faltaría más, también se protege con barreras arancelarias a esos agricultores de lujo, muy sindicalizados y que saben blandir su voto como una espada de Damocles sobre los políticos.

Los políticos socialdemócratas de Suecia, el retroprogre José Luis Mañana-Zapatero en España o el conservador Monsieur Chirac en Francia comparten la hipocresía de pedir más ayuda para el tercer Mundo cuando, en realidad, esa ayuda es sólo una nueva forma más sutil de subvencionar a unos agricultores que nunca podrían competir con los del Tercer Mundo si hubiera libre comercio.

Hablar de comercio equitable, como hace la izquierda anti-globalización, es un sarcasmo. Comercio equitable es abrir las puertas del mercado europeo a los productos del Tercer Mundo y cortar de una vez las subvenciones que falsean el mercado.

A Brand New Concept And Two Old Follies

2004-12-09T02:00:00.000+01:00

One of my favorite bloggers, Stygius, has a very good post that, as it happens, originated in a comment of mine to another post about the visit of Gen Musharraf to Britain. Stygius, a genuine esprit fort, has coined a very useful term to describe a hideous and very actual concept: cultural assassination. Have a look at this article that he linked to…

The closing argument of his post (again, definitely a recommended reading) says:

The cultural assassination of course has a political element to it; but I think it works to put the lie to the idea that movements such as al-Qaeda have clearly discernible ends that--if we accede to them--will allow us to one day peacefully coexist with the terrorist.

And I agree, (oh so much!) with this assessment:

(But) with the murder of Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh, our notion of assassination is being broadened, as it returns to its fundamentals of simultaneous savagery, ecstasy, and suicide…
…the possibility of a coming wave of "cultural" assassination. Its objectives are more intangible than the political assassination; more directed at an aesthetic element. The nebulousness of what it is directed at (i.e., killing a culture by killing its representatives and symbols), and what it is "defending" seems to give the cultural assassination the sense that the bloody act is itself its own end. The atrocity, in its atrociousness, is self-validating in its orgasmic excess. The murder itself is emblematic of the hopes of its practitioner.

Well, for the record I think that cultural assassination had been routinely taking place in the Basque Country, a corner of Europe where journalists have been killed, painters (even abstract painters!) had their work destroyed, university teachers and singers were forced into exile… the ETA, the continent’s oldest terrorist group, which some suspect of collaboration with the jihadists, has been using cultural assassination for over 40 years to silence criticism and force Basques into submission; they have had a large measure of success, one must say. In fact, I believe that the so called Basque Paradigm very accurately defines de logical frame of every terrorist insurgency, a form of war that is, by definition, asymmetrical but not less total.
The murder of Theo van Gogh for me inaugurates, on a continental level, the basqueization of Europe. There is now a campaign of threatening letters against politicians, artists, journalists and religious leaders going on. The message is simple: “Respect Islam (i.e. abstain from any criticism against us) or else we’ll kill you.” In the Basque Country the ETA routinely sends a copy of the key to the building door or a picture of their kids going out of school…

France and Spain: howling at the moon

The stances of Jacques Chirac and José Rodríguez Zapatero regarding terrorism prove that daftness is beyond ideology, age and national origin. Monsieur Chirac has all but forgotten why two French journalists are now the two hostages that have spent more time in captivity in Iraq. At least, he doesn’t seem to have an irresistible urge to talk about it. Instead, he had a most curious attitude during the last days in Paris of Arafat, that champion of democracy.

Señor Zapatero’s government is to pay a salary to every Islamic preacher willing to come to Spain and is also taking the steps to teach Islam in Spain’s public schools. He advocates an “Alliance of Civilizations” between the West and Islam which is actively supported by, say, the Syrian regime and Venezuela’s self-styled colonel Chavez. He also said to Time magazine that he has solved the problem of modern terrorism: the magic answer to quash al Qaeda is the equality of the sexes (verbatim).

Of course, both gentlemen dislike George W. Bush’s brand of unilateralism and harsh manners in the War on Terror, overthrowing tyrants instead of preaching moderation to them, like señor Zapatero loves to do with the Cuban Supremo. (By the way, I tend to believe the people who claim that the Castro regime has got some sort of leverage over Mr. Zapatero… call it blackmail or call it inside knowledge, but Cuban Foreign Minister Perez Roque said months ago that Spain would come crawling on its knees to Havana.)

But now the going in Europe is getting rough and rougher might it get if the Iraqi election actually takes place in January. If the situation in Iraq starts cooling down, Allawi wins and the foreign fighters leave, expect the murder of film maker VanGogh to become a repletion of things to come in Europe.

Attacking Little Satan

Pouncing upon Great Satan USA has proven a risky proposition. Chances are just too big for the pious murderer to get killed or land in a place like Guantanamo or worse.

But Little Satan Europe is different. At least in Spain –it already learned its lesson-, France and Germany, chances are that a wave of selective terror could yield some results in form of tax-money ransom and a legal separation of sorts. What a neat idea, Muslim neighborhoods under Shariah rule and heroic jihadists respected by everyone…

Perhaps the jihadists could bomb Little Satan into accepting whatever agenda the apostles of multi-culturalism would care to propose in order to appease the Holly Warriors’ vengeful wrath. Separate education, Islamic courts for Muslims, public money to pay for mosques and imams… What’s wrong with dreaming a little bit? It took just 200 Spaniards killed to get Zapatero voted into power and loads of money and respect for the (True) Believers…

Now, what should be the best tactics for the jihadists to achieve cultural (and social) separatism? I think selective terror of the cultural assassination sort may become a weapon of choice.

From multiculturalism to breaking our societies into a patch-work of self-centered, uneasily co-existing communities, the distance is not so big. And, well, the philosophical bridge across the river of democracy could very well be the moral relativism still proposed by the aging gurus of the European left.

Via Jihad Watch
Judge Awards $156M to Dead Teen's Parents

CHICAGO - Three Islamic charities and an alleged fund-raiser for the Palestinian militant group Hamas were ordered Wednesday to pay $156 million to the parents of an American teenager killed by terrorists outside Jersusalem.

A federal jury deliberated for one day before awarding $52 million in damages to the parents of David Boim, shot down at a bus stop eight years ago. U.S. Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys then tripled the damages.

But it is uncertain whether the family can collect much money from the defendants, some of whom have had their assets frozen by the government.

...

Before the trial started, the judge had found the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Islamic Association for Palestine and alleged Hamas fund-raiser Mohammed Salah liable in Boim's death.

The jury found that the Quranic Literacy Institute of suburban Oak Lawn, a group that translates Islamic religious texts, was also responsible for the shooting.

Honest Chirac and Ethical Zapatero Support Virtuous Annan

2004-12-07T21:36:00.000+01:00

French President Jacques Chirac and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero phoned U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan Tuesday to express their solidarity in the face of criticism over the U.N. oil-for-food scandal in Iraq.

Zapatero and Chirac, had a bilateral summit in the northern Spanish city of Zaragoza, discussed Annan's situation over lunch and agreed to telephone him immediately.

Annan has come under scrutiny over the $64 billion oil-for-food program for Iraq, administered by the U.N. through which ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein reaped $21.3 billion in illegal kickbacks.

Annan's son Kojo got a salary, more or less for doing nothing beyond being the son of his daddy, from a Swiss firm, Cotecna, which was supposed to inspect the program and is under investigation.

The French and Spanish position can be understood.

Saddam Hussein paid hundreds of millions in bribes to scores of politicians, journalists and diplomats throughout Europe and at the UN. A sizable share of the bribes went to France and Spain.

In France, the lion’s share of the backhanders went to some Mr. Chirac’s political friends. It is true that his ethical standards regarding public money are known to be less than stringent and only executive immunity is keeping him out of court (and out of jail!) for a string of sleazy scandals including distributing luxury flats in the best of Paris for friends and family for under $100 in rent. Some people have also wondered why the money from the oil-for-food program was systematically entrusted to French banks.

In Spain, the Iraqi regime financed the anti-war movement through a Committee for Solidarity with the Arab Cause, that funneled millions into the pockets of Spanish politicians, journalists and artists. The Havana educated general secretary of the communist party, Gaspar Llamazares was the chairman of the committee, monitored by a former Jordanian ambassador to Iraq now living in Spain. A handful of millions in bribes went to a Catalan politician referred to in the Iraqi files as Xavier Robert, who some in Spain believe to be Xavier Robert de Ventos, a prominent Socialist and defender of the Iraqi regime, although no hard evidence supporting that allegation has surfaced as of now.

Republican Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, chairman of the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said Annan should resign because he had to be held "accountable for the U.N.'s utter failure to detect or stop Saddam's abuses."

Goog luck to you, senator!

Check BarcePundit The Three Amigos!

IMPORTANT COMMENT BY her ***

Hi, Juan. Here's some data about the oil for food scam:

HERE YOU HAVE THE COMPLETE LIST TO THE AL-MADA FILES of bribes handed out by the Saddam Hussein regime country by country.

The bribes are in vouchers of millions of barrels of oil.

The ones correspondig to Spain were:
Spain:

1-Bassim Qaqish/17.5 million
2-Javier Robert/9.8 million
3-Ali Balut/8.8 million

And to France:
France:

1-Adax/ 8.3 million
2-Trafigura (Patrick Maugain)/ 25 million
3-Michel Gremard (Iraqi-French Export Co.)/ 1 million
4-French Arab Friendship Association/ 15.1 million
5-Ibex/ 47.2 million
6-Charles Pasqua (former Interior minister)/ 12 million
7-Elias Al-Gharzali/ 14.6 million
8-ALTC (Claude Caspert)/ 4 million
9-Bernarde Merime (French UN ambassador)/ 3 million
10-Bernarde Merime/ 8 million
11-De Suza/ 11 million

h.e.r.

Bringing It All Back Home

2004-12-06T16:12:00.000+01:00

Well, I’m back...

I have had one of those periods when days seem to have less hours than they should to get everything done. I spent November working like a dog, trying to figure out what future holds for the European economy (no kidding, have you seen that euro at US$ 1.35???). So, I didn’t have much time for blogging or anything else for that matter.

I had the pleasure to be stateside during the election (I got to Miami one good week in advance and stayed until Nov. 10th busy as I was pinching myself) and, well, I had that peculiar feeling of being a first row witness of something really important, some sorts of social mutation. I didn’t see it coming. When history’s pendulum goes back and passes in front of us, it always seems to catch us off-guard, busily glancing at the tip of our noses…

Then I went to Spain to spend three weeks doing some research and interviewing people about their feelings regarding the country’s economic prospects for 2005. The situation there is chaotic in more than one way, with at least a dozen of different factions vying for power within the clannish Spanish left. Zapatero [another link in English and a surprised decryption of Europe's daftest politician ever] is fast losing his shine and people start to realize that the terrorist attacks in Madrid last March maybe were some sort of coup d’état. I intend to write about that and, generally speaking, about Spain in the coming weeks, since it appears to me that it is still the weakest link in the War on Terror…

Talking about the American election, let me quote Urban Empire who has a very insightful and representative account of the day after in Milwaukee assorted of a magnificent statistical quote:

I did want to touch on the election just a bit. Throughout the day on Wednesday, there was this feeling of shock and depression in the city. I live in Milwaukee, a city which went 73% for Kerry and it was just like no one could believe it. My one Republican friend was all smiles, of course. My other friends almost immediately started distancing themselves from Kerry saying how much of a horrible candidate he was (even though they vehemently defended him whenever I made such a claim about him). Then suddenly, the blame shifted. As the fact that Bush won the popular vote by over 3.6 million votes sunk in, many (excluding myself) Kerry supporters started to blame the voters themselves. Comments such as "This is why democracies really suck" or "Stupid dumb hicks shouldn't be allowed to vote" were frequent. Then they see figures like this and the absoluteness of Bush's margin is solidifed.

3,141 counties, boroughs, and parishes in the United States
2,544 counties carried by Bush (81% of total)
597 counties carried by Kerry (19% of total) [via The Glittering Eye]

[via Montmartre] No less than 32 Spanish copycats of Michael Moore produced a documentary movie against former prime minister José M. Aznar, a staunch ally of the US and the UK in the War on Terror. It was called "Hay Motivo" (there is motive) and was to be used during the campaign for the Spanish election in Marrch, giving all sorts of reasons why Mr. Aznar was to be voted out.

Three days before election day, Islamic terrorists -by themselves or perhaps with help from homegrown elements- killed 194 people in Madrid and decided the outcome of the vote. The new rabidly anti-American government of José Rodriguez Zapatero did its best to promote the Hay Motivo movie and it went to the theaters Nov 15th.

Something is changing in Spain. According to mr. Zapatero's ministry of Cultural Affairs, the movie was seen all in all by 496 people throughout Spain (42 million ibhabitants). Believe it or not, if Montmartre has it right, the Spanish emulators of Moore will receive some money from the government. It's called socialism, folks.

Por qué Zapatero me parece peligroso para Kerry y para España

2004-10-23T01:55:00.000+02:00

Recibo de vez en cuando correos diciéndome que escriba más en español. Ahora me llega uno que, además, me exije que explique cómo puedo apoyar la candidatura de Kerry a la Casa Blanca y ser tan duro con José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, el primer ministro español. Voy a intentarlo.

Primero, el que yo piense que Kerry podría ser un buen presidente para Estados Unidos no implica en absoluto que piense que Bush haya sido un mal presidente. Todo lo contrario. Sólo que tiendo a pensar que para los intereses de Estados Unidos podría ser mejor Kerry que un Bush reelegido.

Lamento por eso en el alma que entre los apoyos que ha recibido el candidato demócrata se cuenten los de personajes tan turbios como Michael Moore, el propio señor Zapatero o el líder comunista español señor Llamazares. Lo lamento porque esos apoyos le roban votos y no se merece eso; a mi, personalmente, esos apoyos me empujan hacia Bush. Me digo que su “coalición sociológica” es más, mucho más solida, que la de Kerry, mucho más coherente. Pertenezco al grupo de gente que por ética, estética y experiencia me repugna dar el voto a alguien a quien apoyen los comunistas responsables de 100 millones de muertos.

Decía el otro día Diplomad que habría que ser compasivos para calificar al señor Zapatero de payaso. Y es verdad. Porque todos los buenos payasos han sido inteligentes y sensibles. El está llevando a España a un callejón sin salida en la escena internacional, embarcándola en un viaje hacia la irrelevancia. Sea por incompetencia, por falta de perspicacia o de nivel cultural o por una mezcla de esas tres carencias, está manejando una retórica antiamericana desmesurada, de incontinencia verbal en salida de tono, con un ministro de exteriores que roza el esperpento. Ser el predicador antiamericano del barrio no sale desgraciadamente gratis. Recuerda a la rana que se hinchaba porque quería ser tan grande como el buey y al fin reventó.

Ese señor es un inconsciente. La degradación de la relación bilateral España-EE. UU. se ha convirtido en el eje, en el tema central de la política exterior española. No se trata ya de la trapacera retirada (¿huida?) española de Iraq. El delirante llamamiento del señor Zapatero en Túnez para que otros países sigan su ejemplo es la verdadera cuestión.

Mientras París y Berlín se acercan a Washington, Zapatero sigue dando brincos y gesticulando como el tonto de la aldea global, provocando a la primera potencia mundial. Gane George Bush o John Kerry las elecciones del 2 de noviembre, las diplomacias francesa y alemana desde hace meses están en pleno proceso de reconciliación...

El gobierno Zapatero camina en solitario en sentido opuesto, empeñado en desmontar la estrecha relación que existió hasta las elecciones de marzo entre España y los Estados Unidos. Yo creo que esa actitud del gobierno socialista tiene que ver con su ignorancia. Sorprende el desconocimiento que muestran sus ministros de la realidad social, económica, política y militar del mundo global de 2004 y muy particularmente de los Estados Unidos. Su escaso nivel cultural les hace nutrirse de las caricaturas de la izquierda radical mediterránea, la más inculta de Europa, la más provinciana.

Son tan ignorantes que no se dan cuenta de que si, pese a las declaraciones estupidas de apoyo de ellos y gente como ellos, ganase Kerry, lo último que haría sería sacarles del gueto en el que se están metiendo solos, sin que nadie los empuje. La tradición de la política exterior de los Estados Unidos, que los ministros españoles desconocen, es de solidaridad entre administraciones sucesivas, de continuidad.

Si Kerry saliera elegido el 2 de noviembre, lo último que haría sería propiciar un acercamiento a un político tan tonto e incompetente como para quedarse demostrativamente sentado al paso de la bandera americana. Pretender lo contrario es vivir de ilusiones o, como decía el genial cómico mexicano Cantinflas, lo que pasa por fumar porquerías.

Editorial interesante de La Vanguardia de Barcelona ( vía Barcepundit )

El Gobierno español tiene una sorprendente destreza para provocar gestualmente a su homólogo estadounidense. En un afán obsesivo por desmarcarse de la Administración Bush, la guardia de honor de los marines que desde el 2001 desfilaba en la parada militar del 12 de Octubre en Madrid no podrá hacerlo hoy por falta de invitación.

Lo que para el anterior Ejecutivo era una manera de rendir homenaje a las víctimas del 11-S, para el actual suponía una servidumbre indeseada. Lo curioso es que para retirar la invitación se haya empleado un argumentario patriotero, acorde con festejos nacionales y días hispánicos, otrora de la raza. Oír que la bandera de las barras y las estrellas sobra porque la España soberana no se pone de rodillas ante un gobierno extranjero debería producir un cierto pasmo.

Hemos visto decir tantas veces a Fidel Castro que la famélica Cuba no se inclina ante nadie que nos viene a la memoria aquella España que mandó al matadero caribeño a la escuadra naval del almirante Cervera, aniquilada en cuatro horas de combate. Aquel arrebato patriótico fue tan estéril como el carnaval diplomático que hoy presenciaremos en forma de parada, organizada para quedar bien con Francia, con los republicanos que contribuyeron a liberar París hace 60 años, con los falangistas de la División Azul y hasta con la cabra de la Legión antes que con EE.UU., ese molesto país sin cuyo concurso Europa no se hubiera liberado de sus monstruos autóctonos.

Zapatero or the anti-American single-mindedness

2004-10-19T13:22:00.000+02:00

Spaniards are known to give a lot of relevance to symbols. Therefore, the picture of Jose L. Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain’s picturesque prime minister, conspicuously seated while everybody stands to salute the American flag is very significant. That was during the National Day military parade last year in Madrid. He was there invited, in the VIP space, in his quality of chief of the opposition. He wanted to make sure that everybody could see what he thinks and feels about America, a matter of fishing a few votes. Not very pretty, but understandable. But now, one year and 195 Spanish commuters murdered by al Qaeda later, he is the prime minister…

Since 9/11 2001, a detachment of the US Marines had been invited to march with their Spanish colleagues at the Oct. 12th parade. Now, this time Zapatero was the prime minister, so It had been a little too freaky to indulge in his little leftist act of remaining seated in front of it. So he just didn’t invite the US marines and send invitation to a French Foreign Legion detail instead. Mr. Zapateros intellectual capability being what it is, the idea’s father, without doubt, was the (oh so special) minister of Foreign Affairs, Miguel Angel Moratinos, another professional US basher and a personal friend of Yassir Arafat, that renowned pillar of democracy in the Middle East.

MM. Zapatero and Moratinos are now angry at US ambassador Georges Argyros. He didn’t attend the parade, thus loosing the memorable occasion of señor Zapatero not remaining seated in front of the star-spangled because of the star-spangled not being around to remain seated in front of it… Most indelicate, Ambassador Argyros spoiled the fun of whatever anti-American signal they had in store to humiliate him and his country. An infuriated Mr. Moratinos phoned Colin Powell (who didn’t have anything better to do than talking to him about that) to tell him about how offended everybody felt in Madrid…

Being anti-American can be popular among the left-of-the-center European constituency. I can also understand that Mr. Zapatero wants to be as popular as possible with that sort of people. If we don’t care much about ethics, we could even find a some sort of cynical rationale for his public stance towards America: America is wrong root and branch. For him, every American action, both present and past, is an act of deliberate oppression and exploitation. America is an unmitigated evil, an irredeemable enormity. To be against America is to be on the right side of history; to be for it is to be on the wrong side (I borrow the phrase from Lee Harris seminal article on anti-Americanism).

Now, from the point of view of a balanced judgment of his performance as a (supposedly) mainstream politician in a democratic country, those rabid attitudes of his are more difficult to understand, let alone to make sense of.

Some very discerning friend writes to me from Madrid that Zapatero is perhaps the least cultivated political leader in Europe in many years and certainly the least intelligent. I won’t argue whether he is the kind to hide a sugar cube in a bucket of water or not, but I think that he is a fantasist day-dreamer and definitely quite ignorant regarding foreign relations.

My hunch is that this man lives in his own dream and can assemble only the most shaky relationship to the real world around him. But, then, he is perpetually insisting that his world is the real one, and in that process, he reduces the real world around him, and the people in it, to a theater for the enactment of his own private fantasies.

And well, had Zapatero been born in Latin America he probably would have been a Hugo Chavez of sorts… Since Spain is in Europe, he can’t really give free rein to his creative instinct and needs the advice of a cohort of dubious characters that still keep him in the belief that a tacit undeclared peace with the terrorists (be they Basque or Islamic) is a sensible alternative: he has just to negotiate with them and seek the friendship of say, Arafat, Fidel Castro and the Syrian regime, pay a salary to every Islamic self-appointed preacher in Spain and rely on an inexistent axis Paris-Berlin in Europe. The crucial question is to remain as anti-American as possible.

Meanwhile, in the real world, life goes on. In Paris everybody talks about the progress in the not so discrete negotiations of Nicolas Sarkozy with Colin Powell in order to repair the relations between Paris and Washington asap. French jurists debate what it would take to grant some ad-hoc immunity to President Chirac so that he could step down (his ailing health, bien sûr) without having to face the judges regarding his use of some public moneys and a few perks like ludicrously low-rent lavish apartments in the center of Paris for some of his family members and that sort of peccadilloes.

Sarkozy stands a very good chance to be the next president of France and he happens to be pro-American and said to have a very moderate enthusiasm about Mr. Zapatero political perspicacity.

And now, for the next post I have a tantalizing gossip about how Paris just sabotaged Mr. Zapatero’s stupendous plan to negotiate a truce with the Basque terrorist group ETA.

Worth reading: Diplomad's view of Zapatero

[Zapatero] A man who can only charitably be called a clown has replaced Aznar as head of government. A clown who came to power in the confused hours immediately following the horrid March 11 bombing of Madrid commuter trains by Islamic terrorists. A clown who rallied his supporters and tricked anxious voters with promises of putting an end to such terror by pulling out of the "coalition of the willing" that had liberated Iraq, withdrawing Spanish troops, engaging in some of the most strident anti-American rhetoric heard from a chief of government in Europe, and groveling to the French in the name of EU solidarity. His September 21 speech to the UNGA (excerpted above) was an unintended comedy classic (English translation; Spanish original) of breath-taking stupidity and vapidity....

Well, I do agree.

Woops! I almost forgot!

Let me quote again from Diplomad. They tell it so well...

The response of the Islamists to having their posteriors kissed [by señor Zapatero]? In sum, they undertook a wide-ranging plot to blow up Spain's high court, destroy court records, and kill as many judges as possible with a truck bomb containing between 500 - 1000 kgs (1100 - 2200 lbs) of explosives in order to "administer Spain the worst blow it has ever suffered." In other words, 200 dead commuters in Madrid were not enough. It appears the plotters were in contact with criminal elements as well as fellow Islamofascists in Europe, America, and Australia and possibly the Basque terrorist organization ETA (Basque Fatherland and Freedom) which has killed hundreds of Spaniards over the past 35 years.

So it would appear that the Madrid bombing was not really about Spain's role in Iraq or its friendship with the United States. No, not at all. Spain's "crimes" were and are that it is not Islamic and that in 1492 the Christians expelled the last of the Moors from Iberia. In other words, Spain and Spaniards must convert or die.

Again, I do agree.

The French Hostages & The Syrian Connection

2004-10-06T22:17:00.000+02:00

A dramatic development has taken place in the murky affair of the two French journalists kidnapped in Iraq 45 days ago. François Bayrou, president of the UDF party (center-right), who met French Prime minister Raffarin yesterday, said that the Prime minister acknowledged to political party leaders that his government "did not rule out the possibility of the presence of the two French hostages in Syria."

While confusion continues to grow regarding the location of the hostages, it seems that the French now believes they could be in the hands of some Syrian service. What nobody says publicly is whether they were originally kidnapped by the Syrians or if these just “bought” them from their captors, who could belong to one of the dozens mafia-like groups that kidnap foreigners to re-sell them to al-Quaeda.

According to sources quoted in the French newspapers, the Syrians would have wanted to avenge France’s voting at the United Nations in favor of the US sponsored 1557 resolution, calling for Syria to end its occupation of Lebanon. The good news is that the hostages could be now closer to being set free, since France could use the very traditional diplomatic channels between states to put some pressure on Damascus. The bad news is that, in all cases, if the Syrian connection is proved, France will have to reconsider all its policy in the Middle East, based on appeasement, siding with Arafat in the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, and refusing to acknowledge the very existence of “rogue states”. An even more ominous scenario would be that the captors, to prevent exposure, decided to assassinate the hostages.

According to some versions, president Chirac was informed of the Syrian connection by his friend, the Lebanese primer minister Rafik Hariri. Another pressure to counter the 1557 UN resolution would have been the car bomb last week (Oct. 2nd) in Beirut that nearly killed former Minister Marwan Hamade, one of France’s closest allies in the region, precisely while Hariri and Chirac were meeting at the Elysée Palace in Paris.

Syrians angry over claims

Via Arabic News
Damascus rejects to be involved in the French hostages case
Iraq-Regional, Local, 10/7/2004

Damascus yesterday refused remarks loomed by French sources on the possibility that the two French hostages in Iraq and their Syrian drivers are with it and the attempt to link the matter with UN Security Council resolution 1559 as well as the allegations that it used the mediation made by the French parliamentarian Dedieh Julia.

Birth of a Communicator

2004-10-03T03:03:00.000+02:00

For John Kerry, his first debate with President Bush on 9/30 was to be, had to be, the launching pad towards victory. It wasn’t. Most people seem to agree that he “won” the debate, but Bush emerged from his “defeat” considered by the majority of the people who saw the debate to be more believable, more likable and tough enough for the job.

The democratic challenger can now say, like Pyrrhus after the battle of Asculum, "One more such victory and I am lost". Look at this summary table of the Gallup survey of registered voters who watched the debate:

KERRY VS. BUSH ON QUALITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS AFTER THE DEBATE Sep 30
	Kerry	Bush
	%	%
Expressed himself more clearly	60	32	+28
Had a good understanding of the issues	41	41	0
Agreed with you more on the issues you care about	46	49	-3
Was more believable	45	50	-5
Was more likable	41	48	-7
Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job	37	54	-17
(+) indicates Kerry lead (-) indicates Bush lead Source:Gallup

Then you may well say that Americans saw Kerry as more articulate and well-spoken than Bush but they didn’t believe his message, nor did they think that fluency in English and the capacity of delivering sentences with more than two verbs are to be a president’s most important competences.

All in all, 53% of the sample said that Kerry did the better job in the debate and 17% of the republicans agree with that. Only 37% thought Bush did. Of them, only 8% of the democrats. I think that 8% of democrats are the most enlightened portion of the American people. Please, do count me in that groovy lot. I think that George W. Bush won the debate, if by winning we mean that he got closer to re-election; symmetrically, I believe Kerry lost because he didn’t get any closer to victory on November 2, far from it.

Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan have published “All The President's Spin”, a book that defends a notion which can be far-out to the Bush-bashing crowd in Europe and the adulators of dear Michael Moore. They mean that Bush is anything but the stupid, brutish red-neckish simpleton they love to depict; instead, they claim, [Let me quote one of my favorite European bloggers, Bjørn Stærk] (Bush) is the first president to apply principles from public relations to the White House on this scale. It's not just about having good hair and a warm smile any more.

And yet Bush is not just playing the same game as the other side - he's better and more deliberate at it than any previous president. He's a skilled, full-time manipulator. And the media lets get him away with it.

Wait a minute. That can't be true. The American media is left-of-center, it's biased against conservatives, not for them. Right? Well, yes. This can be discussed, but I largely agree that it is. From what I can see from across the Atlantic, there is a consistent left-of-center bias in the American media.

Bjørn seems pretty convinced that the authors of “All The President's Spin” got many things right about George W. Bush and so am I after this fateful debate.

But then the US media, and specially the Dan Rathers of this world, are too influenced by the hierarchy of values of pre-Internet society, they are communicating to readers, viewers and listeners who don’t exist any longer. The ones who would have voted into the White House a candidate just because he expresses himself more clearly than his opponent or has a more stylish haircut. And that’s the American media, because George W. is even more difficult to decrypt for their European colleagues; they are still at the stage of believing that a Texan moron can become the president of a country with 300 M people in it, which happens to have 18 out of the best universities in the world, is the only superpower left and invented the Internet. Poor little things. Some Texans are very sophisticated and some Europeans just think they are.

George Bush behaved in that debate as a master perception manager. He let Kerry develop his arguments to the last available tenth of a second in his beautiful New England English. Bush didn’t even seem to have memorized what he had to say. In just about right thick Texas vernacular, he kept saying that Kerry was a flip-flop and that George W. Bush was the best man to do the job of presiding the United States of America. He let Kerry do the talking and he did the communicating.

If you want some historic data to put what I say into context, here you have a beautiful one:

On Sep. 28 1984, there was a debate between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale. 54% of the viewers said that Mondale carried the day. 35% thought that Reagan had won.

I had just put this post online when someone flashed me an angry email telling me several ugly things about my sanity. Since the sender is a friend (who didn’t want to embarrass me by posting a comment) , I feel obliged to address one of the things he says, at least to prove that I’m not more unhinged than the average. He says that Kerry made many grave accusations about Bush’s careless decisions regarding Iraq and the War on terror. Well, without entering into the matter of whether the accusations are warranted or not (that’s irrelevant in this context), I believe that they were largely ineffectual in terms of changing people’s perception of George W. Bush. The data from Gallup confirms that. Why?

First of all. After Michael Moore took Bush bashing deep into the red zone of overkill, nothing you (or Kerry) could say against him was really new nor really impressing. Every single attack against Bush during the debate was an old recuperated arrow, some sorts of de-cafeinated version of some prior assault, that people had already heard in a much more aggressive if not insulting form. All and everyone of the attacks that Kerry delivered rang bells, they were familiar, old, stale, worn-out. People who believed them before the debate continued to do so after and the other way around.

I mean, when one has seen Fahrenheit 9/11 or read any of the 81 books calling Bush anything from Hitler to the Anti-Christ, Kerry just sounded lame, flimsy. That wasn’t made better by the fact that the challenger tried to make them more palatable his attacks with a little ironic smile that exuded superiority, if you see what I mean.

Cheer up M !

This is the LINK to the Newsweek poll that says exactely the opposite (Via Urban Empire)

Rasmussen's Presidential Tracking seems to confirm my thesis and the Gallup survey. It is based on a daily charter survey of likey voters (phone interviews).

Sunday October 03, 2004--The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows President George W. Bush with 49% of the vote and Senator John Kerry with 45%.

These results are based upon a survey of 3,000 Likely Voters conducted Thursday night, Friday night, and Saturday afternoon. As a result, just over two-thirds of the interviews were conducted following Thursday night's Presidential Debate.

Interviews conducted on Friday and Saturday show Kerry with a one-point bounce so far since the debate. However, in post-debate interviews, Bush still leads 49% to 46%.

A very good post by Stygius refutes my analysis with some very interesting arguments.

Read it here

Now, I think it belongs among the very best traditional analysis I have read. But I have a couple of arguments that I think will put the whole question back into perspective... Working on it.

Gallup has published a new post-debate survey -this one of likey voters- that seems to confirm much of Stygius' criticism of my post. Will I have to swallow my analysis (sigh)? Thinking like a percolator and working on it.

Predictable Candidates? Perception Managers? Back to the Future

2004-10-01T01:19:00.000+02:00

Now, journalists often complain (particularly when having more than their fair share of booze) that their wives/husbands don’t understand them, their editors should sell shoes, and those *#*k!%6 politicians are just too #@k!%6 predictable, so what’s the point with loosing your time asking them questions if you know exactly what they’re going to answer.

Well, that may be so in many cases. Politicians were never portents of candor, but things are going from bad to worse with the irresistible rise of PR experts, image authorities and communication gurus.

Right now it is 5 pm ET in the States. In 4 hours (that’s 3 AM over here!), John Kerry and George W. Bush will be “debating” for the world to see and Americans to decide who’s the man that will call the White House home for the next four years. And some journalists are so weary that they have written things like the futuristic article below (Thanks Molotov) that is ricocheting around the Net.

Just let’s see tomorrow if there are many a divergence between this and what the NYT, WT, LAT etc. say…
Here it is.

CORAL GABLES, Fla. Sept. 30, 2004 — After a deluge of campaign speeches and hostile television ads, President Bush and challenger John Kerry got their chance to face each other directly Thursday night before an audience of tens of millions of voters in a high-stakes debate about terrorism, the Iraq war and the bloody aftermath.

    The 90-minute encounter was particularly crucial for Kerry, trailing slightly in the polls and struggling for momentum less than five weeks before the election. The Democratic candidate faced the challenge of presenting himself as a credible commander in chief after a torrent of Republican criticism that he was prone to changing his positions.

    Bush was expected to confront questions about leading the nation into war on the still-unproven premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He also has faced accusations that he lacked a strategy to deal with the violence and chaos that have left more than 1,000 Americans dead and that the Iraq war has diverted U.S. attention from al-Qaida and other terrorists.

    With a record of four years in office to defend, Bush had a debate strategy of being optimistic about Iraq but acknowledging that times were tough. His stance is that Americans know he is a decisive leader even if they don't always agree with his decisions and that Kerry has taken conflicting positions on Iraq and can't be trusted to lead the nation.

    Although Kerry voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, he says he would not have followed Bush's path to war a path that alienated allies and, the Democrat says, left Americans less secure. Kerry argues Bush is out of touch with reality, paints too rosy a picture about Iraq and lacks a strategy to end the crisis. Kerry also says Bush has neglected other major problems like North Korea and Iran, two nations suspected of pursing nuclear weapons.

    Kerry, in a taped interview on ABC's "Good Morning America" on Thursday, said, "George Bush is scaring America. He's talking terror every day, and people see terrible images of what's happening in the world, and they're real."

    Bush spent the morning comforting hurricane victims on his fifth survey of Florida areas hit by storms. At the Martin County, Fla., Red Cross center, Bush thanked volunteers for showing "the true heart of America. We long to help somebody when they're hurting."

    The debate's focus on Iraq was sharpened by bombings in Baghdad Thursday that killed three dozen children.

    Ahead in the polls, Bush could afford to settle for a debate draw while Kerry needed something to break the status quo. Some Democrats saw the debates as the last chance for a Kerry breakout.

    Thursday night's meeting at the University of Miami was the first of three Bush-Kerry debates over a two-week period. Neither side was underestimating its importance with a TV audience of 30 million to 40 million expected. Almost a third of people surveyed say the debates will be a deciding factor in how they vote.

    The first debate drew the nation's attention to hurricane-battered Florida and its political importance. Florida swung the presidency to Bush in the disputed 2000 election and could determine whether he wins re-election

    The debates were staged under a rigid set of rules negotiated by the candidates' representatives to limit spontaneity and opportunities for back-and-forth exchanges.

The American Diplomadic Underground Vs. Old Europe

2004-09-28T01:05:00.000+02:00

Say Cheese!

I mean, I do understand these guys at www.diplomadic.blogspot.com. There are two or three trades that really force their practitioners to hide what they think, that make a professional obligation to smile and say nice things to the stupid fool you are facing with a glass of (weak) booze in a stupid cocktail that you’d be oh, so happy, to strangle. Take journalists, diplomats and priests…

As a journalist I have been so many times there, sheepishly staring at some snide crook delivering the usual load of lies! Furiously chomping on my poor pencil or pretending to check if the recorder was working properly (it usually was), so as to hide my embarrassment and eventual murderous impulses (that itching in the fingertips!) … Now, oftentimes the professional deceiver was a diplomat doing his job, if you see what I mean...

Often the script wants the diplomat to tell the reporter something that he/she perfectly knows the other would be a low-tech dumb cluck to swallow… Since most reporters are reasonably witted and awake, the diplomat -who usually isn’t half-witted either- knows very well the other doesn’t believe one iota. But well, both make a living playing in that never-ending farce; one does the talking, the other sort of listening for the bell.

Now the Internet and its blogging revolution has made these professionals of concealment free to indulge in sincerity. At last! Free to say whatever you want!

I just enjoyed enormously the post “Sorry, But Euro Bore” of the US State Department Republican Underground. FSOs (and others). Here are some (long) excerpts:

There must be one. We don't know where, but there must be. There must be some place with politics more boring and inconsequential than those in EU Europe, but we can't name that place right now. In fact, everything about EU Europe (sans the UK, we always exempt the UK) is a giant bore. Nothing interesting or particularly important happens there. It's Canada but with tiny cars, 300 million people, and 9,000 types of cheese.

What are EU politics about? Simple, they are all about pensions, doles, subsidies, and new ways to avoid working and contributing to the advancement of mankind. Think we're kidding? Pick a European party -- right or left, no matter --cut through the rhetoric -- you won't have to cut much -- and the party is about coming up with new doles while making sure the old ones are protected. "The mean ol' (fill in name of party) wants you work 35 hours/week! We the (fill in name of party) will make sure you work only 30 hours a week! This will create more jobs, as the evil capitalists will have to hire more people! This will create more pensions, more free time, more sick leave, more, more, more . . .!"

Oops, sorry. We left out something else EU politics is about: being anti-American and anti-Israeli/Semitic. It seems that every continental EU politician has to establish how incredibly anti-American he/she/it is. EU "foreign policy" largely consists of loud denunciations of whatever the USA (or Israel) does (e.g., intervene in Iraq) or protestations about what the USA does not (e.g., not intervene in Darfur.) European foreign policy consists largely of blather about "soft power," quietly paying ransom, and always arguing for the need to "talk more." This has worked so effectively, we hear, that the Iranian mullahs will now give up their nuclear program just to avoid another conversation with a delegation of pompous Euro dips -- Europe has very good smelly cheese and very bad dental hygiene, a potent combination in a negotiating team.

Among the features of EU anti-Americanism is lecturing the US about how superior Europe is because of its doles and pensions and, of course, because it's, well, not the USA. We poor American Diplomads have to sit through endless bloviating from Euro colleagues about how Europe has high taxes but excellent public services, unlike in the USA. Of course, that the reality is far different doesn't bother them. OK, yes, we'll gladly grant them that Europe has taxes that are higher than in the US, but, sorry, they don't get much for them: European public services are much, much worse than ours. This statement comes as a shock not only to Europeans, but also to many Americans of the NY Times variety who see high taxes as the answer to every question. Don't believe it? Go to Europe, get sick or hurt, call an ambulance. Then, wait and wait and wait. If that's not the week the ambulance drivers are on strike, when (if) the ambulance comes, you quickly will learn that an American hearse has more life support equipment, and that European paramedics couldn't teach a Boy Scout first aid course. The ambulance, however, will look good compared to the public hospital where you'll be delivered, and, if still alive, you will wish that you were in the hands of American Boy Scouts.

Our "friends" the French get upset when we say this, and immediately retort that their medical system is considered (by whom?) the best in the world. Yes, that's the very same system that when the temperature went up a few degrees in the summer let 15,000 people die. Imagine the scandal in the USA if 15,000 people died because the temperature "shot up" to 95 degrees Fahrenheit! Imagine if we couldn't handle 95 degrees: LA would be a ghost town; Vegas never would have happened; Texas would be a howling wilderness.

Worth a visit, worth a Blogroll! Freedom's just another word for blogging, folks.

UPDATE ------------------>
Talking about France, have a look at the thread at Winds of Change. I've been posting there just to get the record straight (less crooked, that is), nuance instead of black & white. Katzman's headline is, well, France: Siding With the Enemy. Again.

Thoughtful reading while in bed, with a terrible cold

2004-09-26T01:41:00.000+02:00

Sometimes the cowardice of the emperors, often the weakness of the empire, made that they sought to appease with money the people which threatened to invade. But peace cannot be bought, because the one who sells it is in the position to force us to buy it again.

It is better to take the risk of an unhappy war than to give money to have peace; because a prince is always respected when it is known that he will not be defeated without a long resistance.
Montesquieu, Rise and fall of the Romans

Quelquefois la lâcheté des empereurs, souvent la faiblesse de l’empire, firent que l’on chercha à apaiser par de l’argent les peuples qui menaçaient d’envahir. Mais la paix ne peut pas s’acheter, parce que celui qui l’a vendue n’en est que plus en état de la faire acheter encore.

Il vaut mieux courir le risque d’une guerre malheureuse que de donner de l’argent pour avoir la paix ; car on respecte toujours un prince lorsqu’on sait qu’on ne le vaincra qu’après une longue résistance.
Montesquieu, Grandeur et décadence des romains.

A veces la cobardía de los emperadores, a menudo la debilidad del imperio, hacían que se intentaba apaciguar con dinero a los pueblos que amenazaban con invadir. Pero la paz no puede comprarse, porque el que la vende queda en posición de obligarnos a volver a comprársela.

Vale más correr el riesgo de una guerra desgraciada que dar dinero para tener paz; pues se respeta siempre al príncipe que se sabe no se puede ser vencido sin una larga resistencia.

Montesquieu, Grandeza y decadencia de los romanos

UPDATE ----------------->
Barcepundit has an interesting post that is worth reading after this citation...

UPDATE ----------------->
myth·o·ma·ni·a: A compulsion to embroider the truth, engage in exaggeration, or tell lies.
Don't miss Barcepundit's last post about the self-styled Spanish minister of Foreign Affairs who said on Friday he had demanded an explanation from the White House over President George W. Bush's comment that the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq had emboldened terrorists. A good laugh will cheer you out of your cold.

A New Socialism Is Born!

2004-09-20T04:35:00.000+02:00

To promote Socialism in 2004 isn't easy. To talk about "citizen's socialism" when one is the prime minister of a democratic country somewhere in Western Europe, takes a man like José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. The man that thinks that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a free, stable and sovereign country.

Indeed, reading his interview in Time Magazine felt like following Alice to the other side of the mirror. I also had that particular reverence of being in front of something unique, inimitable. Until I read Mr. Zapatero's interview, I thought that I had already seen all that there was to see of evasive rhetoric, answering on the side and beyond, and populist opportunism. Well...

TIME's James Graff asked him: YOU'VE CALLED ON ALL COALITION GOVERNMENTS TO WITHDRAW THEIR FORCES FROM IRAQ, AS SPAIN DID IN APRIL. DOES THAT MEAN YOU'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT A FUNDAMENTALIST SHI'ITE REGIME THERE OR ETHNIC CIVIL WAR?

Mr. Zapatero "answered": The one question we have to ask is this: Are things any better in Iraq after one-and-a-half years of occupation? The answer is, no. There's a spiral of violence and death.
We have two options: close our eyes or face that reality. Now Iraq needs to recover its freedom, stability and sovereignty as soon as possible.

Notice that he won't say whether he's willing or refuses to accept a fundamentalist regime in Iraq. Nor thinks he appropriate to say if he feels comfortable with an ethnic civil war there.

No. He says that he wants Iraq to recover "its freedom, stability and sovereignity".

That stupendous ensemble of vacant rhetoric calls for some exegesis. But first, a dictum for politicians meeting reporters. Let me call it the Zapatero principle: "If some one asks you about something you don't want to answer, answer to something else and smile".

In appraising Mr Zapatero, like he says, we can't close our eyes and pretend he isn't where he is. And yes, we must face the reality that he governs Spain, not Honduras.

Further down in the interview, Mr. Zapatero says that "the way to fight terrorism has to be intelligent".

For instance, when the whole (civilized) world is trying to put some pressure on the Sudanese government so that it stops massacring the non-Muslim population, he has a better idea: increase the Spanish aid to the Sudanese government from 2 M euros to 7 M euros. And say that threatening them isn't the best way to solve things. That may "serve to increase terrorism". Mr. Zapatero is a bright man, indeed.

And he doesn't want to be a great leader, mind you. He just wants to be a great democrat.

Do not ever think that he may be an opportunist, never saying "no" to anyone. He just wants to do what the citizens want to be done.

When visiting the Basque Country a few days ago, he understood that many people there wanted the old, obsolete, state-owned Izar shipyard to remain open. It is a machine to lose money (the last figure is more than €1 billion, about US$ 1,2 Bn), but the people working there didn't care much about the loses, they want to keep their jobs; so, a smiling Mr. Zapatero said to the local trade union bosses: "Don't worry, I'll save your shipyard jobs." To the story belongs that Izar's workers make less money than their south Korean colleagues, but their boats are much more expensive.

Within days after he made it back to Madrid, he went back on his word, saying that he supported a privatization plan that inevitably will cut to size the payroll. The workers cried foul, the word "treachery" was uttered and around the Izar factories there were the usual images of burning cars and riot police firing rubber balls at masked demonstrators armed with slingshots.

As a matter of fact, calling Mr. Zapatero a traitor is a bit of an overstatement. He only wants to please the people, with a resolute preference, on the spur of the moment, for the ones he is with…

In Madrid he had to please his (competent) minister of Finance, who eventually told him that the shipyard's only possible salvation passed by thousands of redundancies. Mr. Zapatero wanted so badly to please him too that he recanted his promises without much regret.

It would be ill advised to think that the Zapateroan brand of socialism is the same tired old populism of your typical Latin politico, God forbid. The Spanish citizen's socialism is the socialization of hope, the collectivization of dreams, nothing less!

Mr. Zapatero, very conscious that the so called "real socialism" failed to bring happiness to the masses, hatched up an ideological platform that doesn't imply, like the socialism of yore, nationalizing the means of production, but rather to promise everyone anything just to make them happy for as long as possible. That is the core of his citizen's socialism.

That ideological solidity of his explains why the unending row of gaffes of his ministers hasn't troubled him the least; between a rock and a hard place, Mr. Zapatero chooses a smile and a promise.

When his Defense Minister, Mr. Jose Bono, awarded a military medal to himself for his direction of the haphazard withdrawal of the Spanish troops from Iraq, Mr. Zapatero approved enthusiastically; even if some Spaniards -many Spaniards, in fact- found the gesture a little self-indulgent, he didin't want to miss the opportunity of pleasing Mr. Bono. After all, he's a citizen too.

Señor Zapatero is also a cunning political strategistç, endowed with the sense of opportunity. When he urged other countries to follow Spain's example and withdraw troops from Iraq, he didn't do that because he wanted to convince al Qaeda that he was a jolly good fellow. He knows that many Spaniards, nearly all who voted for him, would feel vindicated if his example was followed by other countries besides Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. Of course, it was just a mere coincidence that he made his statement exactly the same day that the kidnappers of two Italian aid workers in Iraq demanded that Italy withdraw its troops or else they would be beheaded.

Thanks God, he says that he doesn't want to be a great leader!
UPDATE 1 ------------->
Señor Zapatero was at the UN in New York and said:"an effective counterterrorism strategy has to be based on respect for international law, respect for the United Nations and, most pointedly, respect for the Security Council" (i.e. the body that refused to endorse the U.S.-led war on Iraq).

Hey! What happened to Sexual equality? What's more effective against terrorism, respect for the UN Security Council or sexual equality? Please, Mr. Zapatero, enlighten me, please...
UPDATE 2 ------------->
Jaime R. from Camberra has sent me an email daring me to prove that señor. Zapatero’s defense minister got a medal for withdrawing the troops from Iraq.
It’s a matter of public record, but let me just quote from the Opinion Journal:

"Call it the Silver Chicken: Spain's Socialist prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, has awarded medals for appeasement "to all those who helped in the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq," reports the Spanish news agency EFE. Among them were three generals and his own defense minister, José Bono, who had been in office all of six weeks when he got the award. Members of the opposition shamed Bono into giving the medal back."

Ole! Have a look at this (funny) Expatica article on the subject.
UPDATE 3 ------------->
I just read a very good post of Vman about Señor Zapatero's memorable speech at the UN. It's rightly called Zapatero's World, Insha'allah

HERE IS THE LINK TO TIME'S FEATURE ON "The Zen Of Zapatero"

[9/12/2004] Spain, Andalusia, Bin laden revisited by The New Yorker
[8/29/2004] The Plastic Politician
[8/15/2004] La responsabilidad de Rumsfeld y la ministra española [ES]
[9/14/2004] Zapatero's Brand New Old Europe (sigh) (sic)

Zapatero's Brand New Old Europe (sigh) (sic)

2004-09-14T02:49:00.000+02:00

M.M. Chirac and Scroeder visited Madrid and were greeted by the Spanish prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, with unabashed self-satisfaction and an impressive show of ignorance about the world we all are living in.

Five months after taking office in the wake of the al Qaeda train bombings which left 191 people dead in Madrid, Mr. Zapatero though it funny to direct a bristle to Washington, saying that "the old Europe is brand new." Chirac and Schroeder had the smiles you can expect from people for whom the writing is on the political wall: one who systematically loses every partial election and is considered the grave digger of his party (the German) or one for whom being in office is, above all other consideration, a shelter against some judge starting to ask tough questions about joyful use of public moneys (the French).

Yet, the Spaniard’s guests are both old hands and blew the smoke adroitely, particularly Mr, Chirac, who is said to have obtained some vague promise of commands for French companies and a pledge of Zapatero that Spain will rise its “unfair” taxes on tobacco, alcohol, restaurants and hotels, to put them in line with neighboring France’s.

Without saying that he can’t hold a candle to his predecessor, the pro-American Jose Maria Aznar, one has to admit that when it comes to geo-politics –or to governance in general for that matter- Mr. Zapatero isn’t exactly the sharpest knife in the European drawer. His ministers wits bring to mind the saying about the one-eyed man being king (or prime minister) in certain countries.

He now says that his decision of pulling troops out of Iraq was a fine example for others US partners in the Coalition of the Willing; according to him, if more countries were to give in and meet al Qaeda’s demands and retreat precipitously from Iraq, “more favorable prospects would be opened up." Mr. Zapatero tells to whomever would listen that he intends Spain to have “an strategic alliance with the Arab countries.”

To the story belongs that his minister of Foreign Affairs and inspirer of his foreign policy, Miguel Angel Moratinos, is a personal friend of Yasser Arafat ; the moral reputation of Mr. Arafat’s personal friends taken into account, I’m not really so sure that it is wise to boast about that sort of relationship. Mr. Moratinos, which has a shrewd sense for opportunity of his own, declared in the days of the stand-off in the school of Beslam that we all should strive to solve the problem of terrorism by political means. The Zapatero administration is to start paying a salary to Islamic imams in 2005.

According to some knowledgeable sources, Mr. Zapatero, a convinced appeaser, is also signalling for negotiation to the murderous Basque terrorists of the ETA. Despite a pact with the opposition Popular Party not to negotiate with the terrorists, some trusted aides would be “in the process of finding the right words” to circumvent the constraint. “There's no conflict here. There's absolutely no conflict whatsoever.”, said a Socialist friend of mine in Madrid, “Our main responsibility is to end terrorist violence and in order to do that we must explore all possibilities. But you can’t call that a negotiation.” Some believe that the ETA leadership would be ready to give up most of the terrorist activity in exchange for political recognition and some substantial economic perks to compensate for the so called “revolutionary tax”, the protection money they now shake off from Basque companies, which could be around 40 M euros a year (ca. US$ 50 M).

Prospects for the Spanish economy have been looking less cheerful since some investment pundits started to have second thoughts about the country’s medium term stability, along with a more radical unionism coming in the wings of Mr. Zapatero’s impenitent populism. On the bright side, Spanish companies may be less prone than their German and French competitors to move plants to Eastern Europe or Asia, although, on the other hand, it is far from certain that they will be able to withstand the ever fiercer competition coming from the East.

According to Jürgen Donges, a specialist on Spanish politics and economics at the University of Cologne, cited by DWW, Zapatero has also good economic reasons for courting MM. Chirac and Schröder.

"When you're in Spain you hear over and over: 'We want to play a part in this Franco-German axis,'" Donges told DW-WORLD. "The Spanish government says: 'If we behave like proper Europeans, we have better chances of getting support for structural funds."

Donges pointed out thet "The current government makes domestic policies according to the device: 'everything that Aznar did was bad; we have to do everything differently'"

"But since the new (anti-American) orientation Spain has become less important to Germany," Donges said. "It's disappeared into a no man's land -- from the viewpoint of the Franco-German axis."

UPDATE

BarcePundit Raves! And he should... Here's to you, caballero:

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was at the centre of a diplomatic row with the United States over comments he made over pulling troops out of Iraq, it emerged Tuesday.

US diplomats in Madrid said they had asked for a clarification of his remarks in the form of a transcript.

The sources said Washington had asked for the transcript "so there can be no misunderstanding" after Zapatero justified his decision to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq shortly after taking office.

EL CIUDADANO KANE HA MUERTO

2004-09-13T04:25:00.000+02:00

Escribo este post en español porque quisiera llevar un viento de ánimo a los españoles (y latinoamericanos) frustrados por unos medios de comunicación que con frecuencia son más la voz de sus amos que los servidores de la verdad y el interés público, manipuladores a sueldo en lugar de conciencia colectiva.

Llevo días queriendo escribir este artículo pero estaba en plena búsqueda de información sobre el tema de los voluntarios musulmanes en el ejército nazi (no perderselo)y preferí dejar que madurase el asunto. Verdaderamente, esta campaña electoral americana está siendo trascendental. Quizá en el futuro se recuerde como el punto en que los medios de comunicación tradicionales perdieron definitivamente la batalla ante los nuevos media en red, los blogs.

El escándalo fallido de los memoranda del servicio militar de George W. Bush durante la guerra de Vietnam ha sido el Waterloo de la prensa tradicional, concretamente del obispo de la cadena CBS Dan Rather. Y los vencedores son el enjambre de blogs que han descubierto que los documentos presentados por Rather eran una falsificación.

Conste que me importa un rábano lo que hicieron o dejaron de hacer durante la guerra de Vietnam tanto Kerry como Bush, cuánta marihuana fumaron o dejaron de fumar o si creyeron que Ho Chi Minh era la Madre Teresa de Calcuta. Lo que me entusiasma es que estamos asistiendo al entierro del ciudadano Kane, de la máquina de picar carne intoxicativa y quiero hablar de las consecuencias sociales de esto. Recemos un responso a la rotativa y el plató de televisión como fuente de poder dictatorial. Lo siento, señor Polanco. Tuviste tu hora, Pedro J. No te des a la bebida, Carmen Lira.

Los nuevos media ha clavado una estaca en el corazón de los megamedias y han dejado temblando al New York Times, el Boston Globe y US Today, que habían apostado por la autenticidad de los documentos... sin molestarse demasiado en hacer las comprobaciones ad hoc. Ha sido como cuando se tomaron a valor facial las afirmaciones de la administración de que en Iraq había armas de destrucción masiva, sólo que ahora era para descabalgar a Bush de la carrera por la reelección; en ambos casos, la prensa tradicional ha seguido su tic de creerse lo que en cada momento coincidía con su política editorial. Esta vez la presunción les puede, les va a salir muy cara.

Para los que no lo sepan: CBS, orgullosamente, puso en su sitio web imagenes de los documentos que supuestamente probaban que George W. Bush había utilizado sus influencias para no realizar los entrenamientos físicos durante su servicio en la Guardia nacional de Texas. De inmediato, un enjambre de blogs furiosos e iconoclastas demolieron la credibilidad de los documentos acusatorios. Simplemente, salieron docenas de expertos que demostraron que en la época en que supuestamente habían sido escritos las máquinas de escribir aún no escribían tan maravillosamente como los ordenadores de hoy. Si eso era ya en sí llamativo, lo impresionante, lo sobrecogedor, es lo fulminante y definitivo del ataque de los blogs.

Es un triunfo de la libertad sobre el poder. En toda mi vida profesional he tenido que padecer desde la derecha y la izquierda las insinuaciones de estar vendido, respectivamente, a la izquierda o la derecha. Y mientras en Estados Unidos los grandes conglomerados informativos apenas si soportaban unas normas deontológicas mínimas, en España la prensa alegremente crítica de la transición democrática se esfumó para caer en manos de trapichadores de poder y en Francia el espectáculo del stajanovismo antiamericano de los medios daba vergüenza ajena. Hoy siento la alegría de abrir la ventana en una habitación cerrada demasiado tiempo, enmohecida. Había en verdad un mundo fuera de Verona...

Internet ha reducido el costo de publicación y distribución de la información a un nivel ínfimo, tendiente a cero. Ha democratizado radicalmente el acceso al conocimiento, pero también ha puesto la producción de información al alcance de todos. Y yo puedo, desde este teclado mio, escribir en tiempo real a amigos de Nueva York, Washington, México, Miami, Toronto, Hong Kong, Boston, Estocolmo, Moscú, Beirut, Cairo, Johanesburgo, Bagdad o Barcelona para que me cuenten si llueve allí o si alguien está bombardeándoles. Y ellos me pueden preguntar, si les interesa, qué pasa entre Sire Chirac y Sire Sarkozy. Eso reduce de forma drástica el poder real de los conglomerados informativos.

Ciudadanos normales y corrientes han podido juntar sus conocimientos de cómo escriben las máquinas de escribir, de los arcanos de la tipografía, de los procedimientos militares, y conseguir competir y neutralizar a uno de los conglomerados informativos más importantes del planeta. Y se acaba poder decir: “Esto es lo que hay, creedlo, porque os lo digo yo, que soy .... (El NYT, CBS, NBC, El País, Le Monde, the Idaho Stateman etc.) . Parque Jurásico, suena el violín de la melancólica extinción de la especie. Ahora ya sólo vale tener mejores argumentos y datos más contrastados que los demás. Se acaba la dictadura del tamaño, derrocada por la inteligencia distribuida de la red.

Nada que tenga que sorprender a quienes conozcan a Frédéric Bastiat o a Hayek. Es el “open-source journalism”, el intelectual (no me atrevo a decir la mente) colectivo. La suma de los autores de los blogs supera a la adición aritmética porque en su interacción hay una función neuronal; el conjunto produce unos editoriales geniales, de geometría perpetuamente variable. La lección de Hayek es que el conocimiento se crea y se ofrece socialmente a los demás a través de la capacidad de entrar en el mercado y competir. En el mercado libre de información que es Internet, los blogs están derrotando al poder establecido. La propia apertura y competitividad, la instantanéidad de la comunicación, relativiza y fragiliza a los detentadores momentáneos del poder, obligándoles a actuar de forma positiva permanentemente, innovando, imaginando, descubriendo...

Adios a una infamia que se acaba en nuestra sociedad global: los apriorismos de los conglomerados, su "ni quito ni pongo rey, pero ayudo a mi señor" Estoy convencido –aunque no podría jurarlo- de que ni Dan Rather, ni ciertamente CBS, publicaron los documentos falsificados a sabiendas, al estilo de ese embaucador llamado michael Moore. Simplemente, Rather pensó cuando vio aquellos documentos que quizá tenía en la mano la llave de la elección del hombre teóricamente más poderoso del planeta o quizá la herramienta para destruir a George W. Bush y convertirse en el Captain America informativo de una posible administración Kerry. Y ese objeto de deseo les hizo decidir mal sobre lo que necesitaba ser investigado -y con qué rigor- en esa llave del destino. Literalmente, perdieron el juicio. No han estado a la altura del mercado y sus condicionamientos intelectuales, de la competencia con el conocimiento distribuido.

Es posible que esta pifia de Rather y CBS termine por desbaratar las posibilidades de elección de John Kerry. Lo sentiré de verdad, porque creo que hubiera sido un buen presidente, quizá mejor que Bush. Pero me alegro porque siento que se reaviva mi fe en la democracia y mi confianza en el futuro. Vivimos tiempos difíciles, pero prevaleceá la libertad porque la República del Saber vela sobre ella.

Descanse en paz, ciudadano Kane.

UPDATE
TrackBack URL for this entry:
The Political Commissar from the Politburo Diktat is really enjoying it tremendously. The Knights of Bloggoland are going to make the skin of the CBS dragon into a carpet in front of the chimney for the long nights of winter. The stupid documents were a forgery and Dan Rather will be almost as stupid if he doesn’t cut his loses and acknowledges that he’s been hoodwinked!

Islam and the Nazi Regime - The Unknown Story

2004-09-12T20:31:00.000+02:00

When it comes to political correctness, History often becomes a lawbreaker...

There are scores of historical events that contradict the bucolic laboratory narration deemed, well, correct...they are befittingly condemned to silence and obliviousness.

That is very true for the evolution of Islam through History since its inception 14 centuries ago. Unhappily, Western journalists usually don't know much beyond a couple of platitudes about the de-colonization process or the contradictions with Kemalism and Nasserism... Yet there is much more…
It is amazing, how little we know about Islamic history, even as recent as the Islamic participation in World War II, particularly of the Muslims from the former Soviet Union. Very few people, beyond a hard core of specialists, are familiar with the attitudes of Islam’s traditional notables and religious leaders towards the Nazi regime.
Now, the jihadists of today have declared war on the “Crussaders and the Jews” and we are confronted everyday to suicide bombers, children being coldly murdered and the whole gallery of extreme cruelty of their war against democracy. Have they materialized from historical nothingness? Hardly. It is high time to look at some antecedents.
During WWII, about 2,000,000 non-German volunteers fought along with the Nazi armies. Of them, 1,600,000 were from the former Soviet Union; a sizable majority were Muslims. There was for example the 162nd Turkoman Infantry Division, composed of Turkomans and Azerbaijanis, the Caucasian-Mohammedan Legion, made up of Azerbaijanis, Daghestans, Ingushes, Lezghins, and Chechens. The Turkestani Legion had volunteers from the following nationalities: Turkomans, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Kirghiz, Karakalpaks, and Tadjiks.
To give a quantitative frame to understand the avalanche of Islamic volunteers to the nazi armies, the Caucasian-Mohammedan Legion is a good example. It had 102,300 men ("Soviet Opposition to Stalin," p.51) at a time when the total population of the Northern Caucasus may have been just above 6,5 M. And they all were volunteers, who chose to fight with the Germans driven by the religious leadership in the region. Almost from the first days of the nazi regime there had ben continuous contacts between Berlin and the Muslim leaders, first and foremost, in Palestine, Iraq and Turkey.

A relentless agitation had been beamed from the Mosques, inspired by a pivotal man, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the most prominent figure of inter-War Palestine. Besides his pan-Arab tendencies, he hated the Jews as bearers of modern European way of life, which confronted to the concepts of Islam as he saw them. In 1933 the Mufti took contact with Nazi Germany and said he looked forward to spreading their ideology in the Middle East, especially in Palestine. He secretly met with German diplomats, and later that year, the Mufti's assistants approached Wolff, the Nazi General-Consul in the area, seeking his help in establishing a National Socialist Arab party in Palestine. But the German refused, since they didn't want at the time to get involved in the British sphere of influence and, besides, membership of the Nazi party was restricted to German speaking "Aryans" only. But they started helping the Mufti with large sums of money and weapons for his anti-Jewish armed groups. Soon, under the influence of the Mufti, Palestinians were to see the Nazis as their only real friend in Europe. In 1937, during the celebration of Mohammad's birth, the Nazi swastika flag was flying high in Jerusalem over giant pictures of Hitler.

In September 1937 the infamous Adolf Eichmann and another young SS officer, were sent to Palestine to organize the pro-Nazi movement. In 1938 the Mufti was already on the payroll of Abwehr II, the German counterintelligence. The Mufti's organization had become massive. He then moved to Iraq, where he was accepted as an Arab and Islamic hero, and he established his headquarters in Baghdad from where he continued his activities through a web of clendestine cells and private "charity" organizations.
He succeeded in establishing a group of pro-Axis officials led by General Rashid Ali, who in 1941 ousted the pro-British Iraqi Prime MinisterNuri Said Pasha. In May he declared jihad against Britain, "the greatest foe of Islam".
However, in a few months the British managed to crush the uprising and the Mufti had fly; this time he went to Germany. On November 21, 1941 he had a meeting with Hitler in Berlin. Hitler accepted that, once the Nazi troops would reach South of the Caucasus, he would help the Mufti to exterminate all the Jews in the Middle East and establish a unified pan-Arab state.

The Mufti's part of the arrangement was to raise support for the Nazis among the Muslims in the Soviet Union, the Balkans and the Middle East. The Germans founded the "Arab Bureau", under his leadership, in Berlin. He was in charge of supervising Axis propaganda to Muslims all over the world.
His first achievement was the recruitment of tens of thousands of the Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania to the Waffen SS Handschar Division. He was also instrumental in the creation of the Eastern Legions, the so-called "Ostlegionen" which contained only volunteers from the non-Russian nationalities. On December 30th, 1941 a top secret memorandum ordered the Supreme Nazi Command to create, first the Turkestani Legion and second, the Caucasian-Mohammedan Legion. The Crimean Tartar were not only gladly collaborating with the Germans, but also supplying the Wehrmacht with 20,000 soldiers.
Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler was the most willing promoter and collaborator of Islam among the Nazi leadership. He hated the 'soft' Christianity and liked Islam, which he saw as a masculine, martial religion based on the SS qualities of blind obedience and readiness for self-sacrifice, uncontaminated by compassion for one's enemies.
Throughout the war, the Nazi Islamic units were used as auxiliary troops of the Waffen-SS, particularly to help the Germans to fight the partisan in the Eastern front and then in Italy and the Balkans where they later participated in massacring tens of thousands of partisan Serbs, Jews and Gypsies. In Ukraine, to instill more terror among the population, the Caucasian hanged supposed partisans from the balconies and prohibited the removal of the corpses.
The Mufti found in Berlin a twin soul and admirer in Veli Kayum Khan, head of the Turkestani "government in exile", and convinced the Nazi bosses to fund a Turkestani National Committee to agitate in the name of the independence of Turkestan and to be in charge of the political and national leadership of Turkestani volunteers. With the aid of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the SS-FHA, Kayum Khan, sat up schools at Dresden and Götingen to train religious imams for the Muslim military units in the Waffen SS and the Wehrmacht. They were supported by some Muslim leaders from the Caucasus, like Alibegow, Khedia, Kantimer, Mischa, and Tschamalja. A speciphic unit consisting of Muslim Tartars, the Wolgatatarische Legion, was formed in Poland on January 1942.
In 1943, the Turkestanis had 15 battalions and one year later grew-up to 26 battalions. Those battalions were usually integrated as independent battalions within German divisions, in charge of punishing rebellious civilian populations… On 14 December 1943, another meeting was held in presided by the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin el-Husseini. He approved the plan to raise a Turkic-Muslim SS division and give his "spiritual leadership" to influence the Muslim volunteers. To lead the new unit Himmler decided to appoint SS-Standartenführer Harun-el-Raschid-Bey, an Austrian Nazi officer who converts to Islam.
The Osttürkischen Waffen-Verbände der SS was formed on January 1944 and was to be expanded into a division, Muselmanischen SS-Division Neu-Turkestan. The unit was formed in Trawniki, Poland. When the SS tried to quell the Warsaw Uprising, the unit was attached to the notorious SS Dirlewanger Brigade, and participated in the brutal repression that killed 200,000 Polish civilians.
When the mass of Soviet Muslims collaborators followed the retreating German armies to avoid the reprisals that awaited them from the Russians, they tried to surrender to the Western Allies but were sent back to Russia. Many of them were executed, others lost in the Gulags. Stalin ordered massive deportations to the east of some of Soviet Muslim nationalities that had fraternized with the Nazis - like the Chechens, Balkars, Ingushi, Karachais, and Crimean Tartars.

Spain, Andalusia, Bin laden revisited by The New Yorker

2004-09-12T19:25:00.000+02:00

I have just read in the New Yorker a very interesting (and long, 19 pages) article on al Qaeda and the terrorist attacks in Madrid last March.

The author, LAWRENCE WRIGHT, has researched his subject very intensely and I absolutely recommend reading it.HERE IS A LINK TO IT.

Note that Wright comes to some conclusions very close to the ones I evoked in the A Plastic Politician, which were also taken up by, a.o., Urban Empire Link 1 Link 2 and Winds of Change

Here are some excerpts:

Gustavo de Aristegui is one of the leaders of the Popular Party in Spain’s Basque country... His father was Spain’s Ambassador to Lebanon and was killed in Beirut in 1989, when Syrian forces shelled his diplomatic residence.

“Al Qaeda has four different networks,” Aristegui told me in Madrid, the day after the Socialists took power. “First, there is the original network, the one that committed 9/11, which uses its own resources and people it has recruited and trained. Then, there is the ad-hoc terrorist network, consisting of franchise organizations that Al Qaeda created—often to replace ones that weren’t bloody enough—in countries such as the Philippines, Jordan, and Algeria.” The third network, Aristegui said, is more subtle, “a strategic union of like-minded companies.” Since February, 1998, when Osama bin Laden announced the creation of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Crusaders and Jews—an umbrella organization for Islamist groups from Morocco to China—Al Qaeda has expanded its dominion by making alliances and offering funds. “Hamas is in, or almost in,” Aristegui said. “Bin Laden is trying to tempt Hezbollah to join, but they are Shia, and many Sunnis are opposed to them.” Finally, there is the fourth network—“imitators, emulators,” who are ideologically aligned with Al Qaeda but are less tied to it financially. “These are the ones who committed Madrid,” Aristegui said.

Until the Madrid attacks, the Al Qaeda operations—in Dhahran, Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, Aden, New York, Washington, Jerba, Karachi, Bali, Mombasa, Riyadh, Casablanca, Jakarta, and Istanbul—had been political failures. These massacres committed in the name of jihad had achieved little except anger, grief, and the deaths of thousands. Soon after September 11th, Al Qaeda lost its base in Afghanistan and, along with that, its singular role in the coördination of international terror. New groups, such as the bombers in Madrid, were acting in the name of Al Qaeda, and although they may well have had the blessings of its leaders, they did not have the training, resources, or international contacts that had bolstered the previous generation of terrorists. Some operations, such as the 2003 attack on Western compounds in Riyadh, which killed mainly Muslims, were such fiascos that it appeared that Al Qaeda was no longer able to exercise control.

**********************

Al Andalus is the Arabic name for the portion of Spain that fell to Muslim armies after the invasion by the Berber general Tariq ibn Ziyad in 711. It includes not only the southern region of Andalusia, but most of the Iberian Peninsula. For the next eight hundred years, Al Andalus remained in Islamic hands. “You know of the Spanish crusade against Muslims, and that not much time has passed since the expulsion from Al Andalus and the tribunals of the Inquisition,” Fakhet says on the tape. He is referring to 1492, when Ferdinand and Isabella completed the reconquest of Spain, forcing Jews and Muslims to convert to Catholicism or leave the Iberian Peninsula. “Blood for blood!” he shouts. “Destruction for destruction!”

***********************

Less than a month after 9/11, Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, had appeared on Al Jazeera. “We will not accept that the tragedy of Al Andalus will be repeated in Palestine,” Zawahiri said, drawing an analogy between the expulsion of the Moors from Iberia and the present-day plight of the Palestinians. The use of the archaic name Al Andalus left most Spaniards nonplussed. “We took it as a folkloric thing,” Ramón Pérez-Maura, an editor at ABC, told me. “We probably actually laughed.” This January, bin Laden issued a “Message to the Muslim People,” which was broadcast on Al Jazeera. He lamented the decline of the Islamic world: “It is enough to know that the economy of all Arab countries is weaker than the economy of one country that had once been part of our world when we used to truly adhere to Islam. That country is the lost Al Andalus.”

**********************

Imams sometimes invoke the glory of Al Andalus in Friday prayers as a reminder of the price that Muslims paid for turning away from the true faith. When I asked Moneir el-Messery, of the M-30 mosque (in Madrid), if the Madrid bombers could have been motivated by the desire to recapture Al Andalus, he looked up sharply and said, “I can speak of the feeling of all Muslims. It was a part of history. We were here for eight centuries. You can’t forget it, ever.”

**********************

Appeasement is a foolish strategy for dealing with Al Qaeda. Last year, many Saudis were stunned when the terrorist group struck Western compounds in Riyadh—shortly after the U.S. had announced that it would withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia, fulfilling one of bin Laden’s primary demands. The Saudis now realize that Al Qaeda won’t be assuaged until all foreigners are expelled from the Arabian Peninsula and a rigid theocracy has been imposed. Yet some of the countries on Al Qaeda’s hit list will no doubt seek to appease terrorists as a quick solution to a crisis.

Intelligence officials are now trying to determine who is the next target, and are sifting through “chatter” in search of a genuine threat. “We see people getting on the Internet and then they get on their phones and talk about it,” a senior F.B.I. official told me. “We are now responding to the threat to the U.S. elections.” The idea of attacking before Election Day, the official said, “was born out of Madrid.” Earlier this year, an international task force dubbed Operation Crevice arrested members of a bomb-making ring in London. During the investigation, officials overheard statements that there were jihadis in Mexico awaiting entry into the U.S. That coincided with vague warnings from European imams about attacks before the elections. As a result of this intelligence, surveillance of border traffic from Mexico has been increased.

Update

Spain's Prime rMinister, JL Rodriguez Zapatero has called the countries of the US lead coalition to leave Iraq.

Islamic Ideology (2):On poligamy from the woman's point of view

2004-09-08T11:36:00.000+02:00

I could and perhaps should comment on this issue. But I think that maybe some good soul, of the kind that believe Michael Moore at face value, would accuse me of Islamophobia or something like that. So here you have it, the Islamic thought on women and a rare defence of poligamy from the point of view of women. No jokes, please.

The Islamic point of view on polygamy

(from http://www.islamvision.org/)

The stand taken by the Quran on polygamy, is often either misunderstood or misinterpreted by vested interests. Let us now examine what is Islam’s stand vis-à-vis polygamy. The related verse in the Holy Quran goes as follows:

"And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry (other) women of your choice; two or three or four but if you fear that you shall no be able to deal justly with them then marry only one" (Holy Qur’an 4:3)

It is very clear from the above narrated verse from the Quran that:

Islam exhorts it’s followers to have only one wife per se; but

Under exceptional circumstances such as to tackle problems of orphans, young widows, and divorcees, Islam allows more than one wife, BUT

The person taking up more than one wife is obliged to do equitable justice among all his wives,

If he fears that he will not be able to do equitable justice among his wives, he is very clearly instructed to take only one wife.

At the same time, Islam restricts the total number of wives to a maximum of four only.

• The world scenario

What happened to the population of the West, at the end of the World War II, when thousands of dying young army men caused huge male-female imbalance may happen once again. Even today there are certain pockets in the world where the marriageable women outnumber their counterparts. How does anybody solve the matrimonial problem of these extra young unmarried women?

Or think about the plight of all those women who after getting married, get terminally ill, paralyzed, bedridden or are infertile. Should they all be divorced and thrown out on the road, so that their husbands can take another wife. Or a more practical approach would be to allow their husbands to take a second wife?

• Injustice to Women

The institute of polygamy is always looked down upon as an injustice to women folks. Is it really so? On the contrary consider the following salient features, which distinctly work in favor of women.

Polygamy gives an opportunity to the woman to choose a life partner who has already proven himself as a good husband, thereby reducing the matrimonial risks.

It extends practical security to a woman against loosing her husband (and everything else with him) to some other better-qualified woman, as it happens in case of monogamy.

It safeguards her husband from possible adultery and its disastrous ill effects.

It gives a possible way out to a career minded woman to pursue her career by having a female friend & husband to share family responsibilities.

It keeps a check on men from flirting with young girls and not marrying them on the pretext of their existing marriages.

Who would know the need of the creation better than The Creator Himself? We mortal human beings may or may not like certain ideas due to our own prejudices, but in the end one has to accept the fact that the Divine Wisdom is infallible.

The French Metaphor (an answer to Michele)

2004-09-08T02:40:00.000+02:00

Michele, the author of Letters From NYC, asked me recently if I could give some explanation about some attitudes of the French. She wondered:

“Are the French that naive or do they have blinders on. Do they really think that their past history towards Arabs, and their new Paris law on female students would be overlooked by these zealots?”

And then, I think quite rightly, she stated, like thinking aloud:

“The implications if they [the al Qaeda terrorists] do release these journalists are tremendous. Or perhaps I'm missing something?”

I will try to answer…

No, I don’t think Michele is missing anything essential. Indeed, the evaluation by the French politicians of the terrorist threat has more often been tainted by self-delusion than impregnated by their presumed famous Cartesian rationality. They are like the man who in face of an impending catastrophe pinches himself while saying “I’m dreaming! I’m dreaming! I’m dreaming! This is not for real.” They just don’t want this war to be real. Until now, somehow, many of them expected the al Qaeda threat to fade away into oblivion or, at least, to become a distant scourge, something that concerned others. After 10 years living in France, I can flat out certify that “naïve” isn’t the adjective that befits best the average French politician; try guileful, canny or perhaps even oversubtle. So, they must have some sort of blinders on.

What sort of blinders? Barring sheer dishonesty, blind wishful thinking seems the most at hand explanation for much of the French elite refusing to look reality into the eye and trying to nitpicker away the notion of being at war. One can understand that: it’s a matter of statistics. Muslims are over 10% of the population in many places in France, including Paris. About 5,5 million. Assuming that 10% may have some sympathy for al Qaeda (that in itself is a very optimistic figure, again falling for wishful thinking), that means some 500,000 potential supporters of terrorism; assume now that 1% would be prepared to actively help the terrorists… You don’t want to believe that in the Paris region you may have 15,000 people ready to participate in Jihad. Of course, one can always seek relief in seeing the figures the other way around: 90% of the French Muslims aren’t potential supporters of terrorism. In the Paris region you have 1,485,000 Muslims who aren’t ready to participate in the Jihad. That’s the line of thought that the French government decided to follow when the Americans asked them if they please would be willing to participate in the War on Terror. But then, I’m really not that sure that it’s wise here to apply the metaphor of the half-empty/half-full glass of water. How many people does it take to plant a bomb on a train?

The (lackluster) French Connection

2004-09-05T18:33:00.000+02:00

On Hostages, Clerics, Chirac, Osama and a load of euros.

UPDATE - 09/06
Bad, very bad news for the French government.

A statement posted on a web site by the Islamic Army in Iraq set a $5 million ransom for the release of French journalists Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot, who were kidnapped near Bagdad on 20 August.

The statement gave France 48 hours to accept three new conditions:

agreeing to a recent truce offer by Usama bin Ladin

payment of $5 million ransom

cut all commercial and military ties to Iraq.

The truce with bin Ladin refers to a peace deal he allegedly offered European countries after al Qaeda’s massacre in Madrid last March. The terrorist leader called on them” to refrain from attacks against Muslims and pull their troops out of the Islamic world within three months.”

Apparently, the kidnappers chose not to mention their former demand of the French government abroging the law against conspicuous religious signs in the schools...

NOTE to Michele from NYC - I'm very busy to give a real good answer to your questions about the French. While you wait, here is a link to a very good article on Paris by an American reporter. REAL GOOD.

The prospects on the fate of the two French reporters held hostage in Iraq for more than two weeks are murky, despite the French government's efforts to sound optimistic. There are reasons to believe, like I already hinted in another post, that MM. Villepin and Barnier –the French ministers of the Interior and Foreign Affairs- have been less than felicitous in the design of the strategy to cope with the kidnapping. Have they been playing the apprentice sorcerer? I think so.

According to the daily Al-Hayat from Cairo, the group holding the two journalists, the Islamic Army in Irak, has already said that it wants al Qaeda, and if possible sheik Osama bin Laden himself, to issue a fatwa (Islamic decree) on what to do with the captives. If he graciously accepts to liberate them, President Chirac will find himself in a really awkward position...

From the beginning, president Chirac and his ministers seemed inclined to take for granted that the kidnapping of the two newsmen was some sort of blooper of a bunch of unsophisticated savages; after all, France was the mainstay of the opposition against the intervention in Iraq, it hasn’t a single soldier there and has plainly said that they didn’t want to send any. They thought they were immune; the terrorists wouldn’t attack French citizens in Iraq. And they were, aw, so wrong!.

The jihadists aren´t savages. Sure enough, they are cold-bloodedly cruel, perverse technicians of causing fear. Nor are they unsophisticated: they know better the frame of mind and the perimeter of maneuver of the French government than the French government has shown to know theirs. The French president and his ministers still believe –or, rather, want to believe- that the fundamental logic behind the war waged by the jihadists against “the Crusaders and the Jews” is geo-political. But they are wrong again. It’s, above all other consideraton, a war of religion, and then, perhaps, a war against democracy. In the jihadists’ eyes, France is not a European power vying for independence from the American Great Satan; it is just a Little Satan that is too coward to fight.

I think that faulty perception of the jihadista is the reason why MM. Villepin and Barnier goofed it up so miserably when they drummed up all the support they could muster among the sort of Islamic dignitaries that the jihadists despise and perceive as corrupt and lukewarm in the best of cases, often traitors and always their enemies. Take for instance, M. Arafat or the Sunnite ulemas in Iraq, the ones who were always crestfallen in front of Saddam, the impious dictator. Those were the sort of advocates that could and probably did worsen the case of the hostages.

Arriving in Iraq, as the French did, without even a minimum modicum of up-to-date intelligence, full of blind wishful thinking and the presumption of possessing the truth, one stands to be baffled by the panorama of some sixty-odd “resistance” groups spanning from al Qaeda proper to self-serving highwaymen and the various remnants of the Saddam regime.

The problem, the real problem, was that the kidnappers of the Islamic Army in Iraq belong to al Qaeda. They follow orders “from above”. Therefore, they refused to meet with the delegation of Muslim dignitaries from France, who, eager to give gages of their French patriotism back home, came to Iraq looking for someone, anyone, to talk to in favor of the hostages. Nor did the terrorists show any interest in communicating with the minister either, despite Monsieur Barnier's flying back and forth in the Middle East and his staying one whole week in Amman, purportedly with an open-ended authorization of President Chirac to offer some pretty substantial ransom to the Islamic Army in Iraq. At one moment, M. Barnier was convinced that he was going to bring the hostages back home.

And that, letting it be known that they were willing to pay a lot of money for their hostages, could be the second folly of the French in this disgraceful story. It was bound to attract a thick swarm of the profiteers, commission-hunters, intermediaries of all kinds and fixers that roam around in the region. Including, obviously, a few shoddy insurgent groups and some self-appointed spiritual leaders. It looks like some of them were able to secure a slice of the French largesse.

A phony sounding Secret Islamic Army-Black Flag Brigade suddenly feels the urge to go public asking the ulemas to publish a generic fatwa about the question of hostage-taking. And a radical Sunnite cleric has immediately complied and asked for the hostages to be liberated… Trying to run faster than al Qaeda and in the process sparing the French government having to thank Osama for the lives of its citizens. I'm affraid that puritan megalomaniac zealots don’t like to have their arm twisted by apostate truants.

There is a big risk that al-Qaeda will try to optimize, one way or the other, what is already a political victory for them. Now they must humiliate the Little Satan beyond repair, say demanding that the France gives a public apology for its treament of Muslims in the past or something of the kind, and then, for the record, launching a pitiless attack on all "false and trecherous" Muslim leaders who deared to tell al Qaeda what it had to do.

So… just wait for the most wanted man in the world to speak up to little Satan.

Al-Battar, the al Qaeda Manual on Kidnapping

2004-09-04T22:54:00.000+02:00

Issue no. 10 of Al-Battar, al-Qaeda’s training manual has a special coverage of kidnapping. Notice that the terrorists in the Osetian school followed more or less the manual...

Kidnapping
A. Reasons for detaining one or more individuals by an enemy:

i) Force the government or the enemy to succumb to some demands.
ii) Put the government in a difficult situation that will create a political embarrassment between the government and the countries of the detainees.
iii) Obtaining important information from the detainees.
iv) Obtaining ransoms. Such was the case with the brothers in the Philippines, Chechnya, and Algiers. Our brothers from Muhammad’s Army in Kashmir received a two million dollar ransom that provided good financial support to the organization.
v) Bringing a specific case to light. This happened at the beginning of the cases in Chechnya and Algeria, with the hijacking of the French plane, and the kidnapping operations performed by the brothers in Chechnya and the Philippines.

B. Requirements needed in forming a kidnapping group:

i) Capability to endure psychological pressure and difficult circumstances. In case of public kidnapping, the team will be under a lot of pressure.
ii) Intelligence and quick reflexes in order to deal with an emergency.
iii) Capability to take control over the adversary. The brother is required to possess fighting skills that will enable him to paralyze the adversary and seize control of him.
iv) Good physical fitness and fighting skills.
v) Awareness of the security requirements, prior to, during, and after the operation.
vi) Ability to use all types of light weapons for kidnapping.

C. Types of kidnapping:

Secret Kidnapping: The target is kidnapped and taken to a safe location that is unknown to the authorities. Secret kidnapping is the least dangerous. Such was the case of the Jewish reporter Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped from a public place, then transferred to another location. It is also the case of our brothers in Chechnya who kidnap the Jews in Moscow, and the kidnapping operations in Yemen.

Public kidnapping: This is when hostages are publicly detained in a known location. The government surrounds the location and conducts negotiations. The authorities often attempt to create diversions and attack the kidnappers. That was the case of the theater in Moscow, and the Russian officers’ detention by Shamil Basayev and the Mujahideen brothers. A counter terrorism officer once said: "There never was a successful kidnapping operation in the world". This saying was intended to discourage the so-called terrorists. History is full of facts proving the opposite. Many operations by the Mafia, or the Mujahideen were successful. There are examples of many successful operations, such as those of Muhammad’s Army, and Shamil in Moscow. Although not all the goals were met, some of them were. The leader Shamil Basayev’s operation was 100% successful, because it brought the case back to the attention of the international scene, therefore the Mujahideen got their reward, thanks to God.

Stages of Public Kidnapping:

• Determining the target: A target must be suitably chosen, to force the government to achieve your goals. Therefore, it is mandatory to make sure the kidnapped individuals are important and influential.
• Gathering enough information on the location (kidnapping stage), and the people inside it. For example:

If the people are inside a building: A thorough study of the fences around the building as well as the security and protection teams and systems. A plan of the building with information on its partitions should be reviewed. The kidnappers could use cars that enter the building without inspection to smuggle their equipment. They should also spot individuals who are exempt from inspection when entering the building. When the cars are parked outside the building, the driver could be kidnapped while parking, or the important people when entering with their cars. High places overlooking the building could be set for snipers, and to prevent the enemy from taking advantage of those strategic spots.
If the people are on a bus: It is essential to know the nationalities of the people on the bus, as nationalities determine the effect of the operation. All information concerning the bus routing, stops for fuel or rest, protection procedures, the program set for the tourists, and other information should be obtained in order to determine the weak spots, and allow easy control of the group.
If the target is on a plane: It is important to determine the destination of the plane. A connecting flight is a better option. Transit areas are more vulnerable where little inspection is provided. Our brothers in Nepal took advantage of such situation, put the weapons on the Indian plane, and hijacked it. Hijackers must be creative in bringing weapons or explosives on a plane. They must also be familiar with the inspection process at airports.
If the target is in a convoy: The same rules for assassination in a convoy apply for kidnapping.

• Besides specifying the targets, and gathering information on them, leaders must put together a suitable plan made at the level of the weakest team member. It has been said: "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link".
• Execution of the abduction: The abductors’ roles vary, based on the location of the kidnapping operation. They are grouped in three categories:
A) Protection group whose role is to protect the abductors.
B) The guarding and control group whose role is to seize control of the hostages, and get rid of them in case the operation fails.
C) The negotiating group whose role is extremely important and sensitive. In general, the leader of this group is the negotiator. He conveys the Mujahideen’s demands, and must be intelligent, decisive, and determined.
• Negotiations: The enemy uses the best negotiator he has, who is normally very sly, and knowledgeable in human psychology. He is capable of planting fear in the abductors’ hearts, in addition to discouraging them. Kidnappers must remain calm at all times, as the enemy negotiator will resort to stalling, in order to give the security forces time to come up with a plan to storm the hostages location. The duration of the detention should be minimized to reduce the tension on the abducting team. The longer the detention is, the weaker the willpower of the team is, and the more difficult the control over the hostages is. One of the mistakes that the Red Army made in the Japanese Embassy in Lima, Peru - where they detained a large number of diplomats - was to allow the hostage situation to continue for over a month. In the meantime, the storm team excavated tunnels under the Embassy, and was able to liberate the hostages and end the kidnapping. In case of any stalling, starting to execute hostages is necessary. The authorities must realize the seriousness of the kidnappers, and their dedicated resolve and credibility in future operations.
• Hostage exchange process: This is a very delicate stage. If the enemy submits to the demands, and the purpose of the operation is to release our imprisoned brothers, it is essential to make sure that the brothers are in good and healthy condition. If the purpose of the kidnapping is to obtain money, you have to ensure that all the money is there, that it is not fake, nor traceable. You must be sure there are no listening or homing devices planting with the money. The brothers must be constantly on alert for possible ambushes. In Bosnia, the UN set up an ambush for the Brothers during the exchange; however, the brothers were prepared for it, and prepared a counter-ambush. When the enemy realized that the brother’s readiness and high sense of alert, they let the hostages go without interception. Our Jihadi operations have proven that security forces are not capable of completely seizing control inside the cities. Therefore, the brothers should find ways to transport their liberated brothers even under tight security measures.
• Hostage Release: The Brothers should be careful to not release any hostage until they have received their own people. It is essential for the brothers to abide by our religion and keep their word, as it is not allowed for them to kill any hostage after our demands and conditions have been met.
• Withdrawal Process: For the withdrawal, some hostages - preferably the most important - must be detained until the brothers have safely withdrawn.
Security measures for public kidnapping:

• Detention must not be prolonged.
• In case of stalling, hostages must be gradually executed, so that the enemy knows we are serious.
• When releasing hostages such as women and children, be careful, as they may transfer information that might be helpful to the enemy.
• You must verify that the food transported to the hostages and kidnappers is safe. This is done by making the delivery person and the hostages taste the food before you. It is preferable that an elderly person or a child brings in the food, as food delivery could be done by a covert special forces’ person.
• Beware of the negotiator.
• Stalling by the enemy indicates their intention to storm the location.
• Beware of sudden attacks as they may be trying to create a diversion which could allow them to seize control of the situation.
• Combating teams will use two attacks: a secondary one just to attract attention, and a main attack elsewhere.
• In case your demands have been met, releasing the hostages should be made only in a place that is safe to the hostage takers.
• Watch out for the ventilation or other openings as they could be used to plant surveillance devices through which the number of kidnappers could be counted and gases could be used.
• Do not be emotionally affected by the distress of your captives.
• Abide by Muslim laws as your actions may become a Da’wa [call to join Islam].
• Avoid looking at women.

Stages of secret kidnapping:
They are very similar to the stages for public kidnapping.

• Specifying the target.
• Collecting enough information on the target
• Setting the plan and providing appropriate training.
• The execution team must be formed of 5 groups: The alarming group that reports the movements of the target; the protection group that protects the kidnappers from any external intervention; the kidnapping group which kidnaps the target and delivers him to a sheltering group; the sheltering group whose role is to keep an eye on the hostage until it is time for exchange or get rid of them; the pursuit deterring group which will ensure the shelter group is not followed or watched.
• Transporting the target to a safe place
• Getting rid of the target after the demands have been met by transporting him to a safe place out of which he can be freely released. The hostage should not be able to identify the place of his detention.

Security measures for secret kidnapping:

• The location where the hostage is transferred to must be safe.
• Beware of the Police patrol.
• While the hostage is being transported, you must beware of Police patrols by identifying their points of presence, to avoid sudden inspection.
• Look for listening or homing devices that VIPs often carry on their watches or with their money. VIPs could have an earpiece microphone that keeps him in touch with his protection detail.
• Everything you take from the enemy must be wrapped in a metal cover and should only be unwrapped in a remote place far from the sheltering group.
• Never make contact from the location where the hostage is detained and never mention him during phone calls.
• Use an appropriate cover to transport the hostage to and from the location. At some point in time the "Allat" party were drugging the hostage and transporting him in an ambulance.
• It is imperative to not allow the hostage to know where he is.
• In this case, it is preferable to give him an anesthetizing shot or knock him unconscious.

How to deal with hostages in both kidnapping types:

• You must check the hostages and take possession of any weapon or listening device.
• Separate the young people from the old, the women and the children. The young people have more strength, hence their ability to resist is high. The security forces must be killed instantly. This prevents others from showing resistance.
• Dealing with the hostages within the lawful control.
• Do not approach the hostages. In case you must, you need to have protection, and keep a minimum distance of one and a half meters from them.
• Speak in a language or dialect other than your own, in order to prevent revealing your identity.
• Cover the hostage’s eyes so that he cannot identify you or any other brothers.
• Wire the perimeter of the hostage location to deny access to the enemy.

[At the end of the issue, a section is devoted to to instructions on how to join the Jihad.]
CORRESPONDENCE: 1. To all the brothers who inquired on how to join the camp, following are brief instructions:

• Use the Al Battar training instructions and keep exercising.
• Try to obtain a firearm (i.e. Kalashnikov), and practice shooting and handling the weapon in the wilderness.
• In the name of God, try forming a cell or a group, through which you can work on fighting the blasphemers, until you get the chance to join the Mujahideen brothers in Al-Haramain country [Saudi Arabia].
2. To all the brothers who inquired on explosives and how to get them, we say: Manufacturing explosives is not as hard as the enemies of God are projecting it to be. They are doing so, in order to keep the young generation from using this effective and scary device against them. When the time is right, we shall provide training on how to make/assemble explosive materials, in the Al Battar magazine, under the "sword of victory" section. Should you be in a hurry to obtain this information, you may use the Jihad Encyclopedia as a reference.

Can a machine tell the outcome?

2004-09-02T13:25:00.000+02:00

Have a good look at this article in Bloomberg

According to some esoteric business mathematical models the winner of Big T election can be predicted... And the winner is...

Aug. 31 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush will win four more years in the White House under formulas devised by professors to predict the outcome of U.S. presidential elections. It may not be that simple an equation.

Eight forecasting models are unanimous in predicting Bush will defeat Democrat John Kerry with as much as 57.5 percent of the vote. The models are based on measures including economic-growth projections and opinion polls. Economist Ray Fair of Yale University says his model correctly accounts for the popular vote in 19 of the past 22 elections.

Even so, forecasters such as political scientist James Campbell say the hunt for terrorist Osama bin Laden and discontent with the war in Iraq are among wild cards that may muddle the modeling. Many forecasts are at odds with polls showing Kerry, 60, running even with Bush, 58. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index, down about 1.4 percent this year, isn't providing Bush with an election-year boost either.

MORE...

Well, i don't believe in this sort of thing. After all, they can't even predict how the stock market is going to behave, so why in heavens could they do better in predicting election outcomes?

Helping George W. Bush to Carry the Day

2004-09-02T04:40:00.000+02:00

CLICK HERE TO SEE A PAGE OF PICTURES OF THE DEMONSTRATION
And Some Video courtesy of Dan Darling

I think Bush bashers are clearly in the overkill zone. They are becoming his best vote earners...

The demonstrations against the Republican Convention in NYC might help George W. Bush to be re-elected. I don’t know –and I really would like to know- if the Bush campaign managers chose NYC to have their convention looking exactly for this or if it was just a fortunate coincidence, sheer luck. Machivelian craftiness or not, NYC was about the best place in the whole US where you could get that enormous number of tattooed, bodypierced, red flag waving weirdoes shouting obscenities at your candidate. And shout they did. according to all the accounts…

Even from Paris –or perhaps because of my being here- some vague instinct was telling me that Bush bashing was getting close to the top of the hill, fatally nearing the ill-omened overkill. Well, I think the demonstrators in NYC may be on the verge of influencing millions of normal Americans into thinking that keeping Bush in the White House might be a good idea after all, to judge on what kind of people are demonstrating against him and how. All and every single interest group in the country, every thinkable and unthinkable marginal bunch of eccentrics, off-beat tribe, outlandish troupe was out there, calling Bush every conceivable insulting thing. Sure, the Peoria Chapter of Drag queens, the anarchist collective of Evanston Illinois, and hundreds of likeminded groups from across the country converged to NYC; but then, the Big Apple has the absolutely best collection in the world of that sort of people. Free-choice chapters, AIDS activists, civil rights groups, chicano unions, the Zapatista support group from Gary, Indiana, all with their own signs and yelling a cacophony of do this, forbid that, Bush ****, Bush @@@@, all dancing at the rhythm of dissident Hare-Krishnas (Hare, Hare) drums. Alice’s mad rabbit riding athwart on a seven wheel bike with a monstrous poster of Bush travestied into Adolf Hitler and some fully tatooed guys selling "George Bush is the Antichrist T-shirts.

I had a daydream featuring the most radical crazies of that improbable crowd, all masked and tossing stones at the cops while Bush’s campaign people were at Sardy's tossing down the most expensive grand crus from Nappa to celebrate the best judoka PR electoral grand slam in decades. And free, mind you, absolutely free, paid for by the democratic voting New Yorkers (the cops’ salaries) and by the demonstrators.

In the middle of the carnival thousands upon thousands of normal people, normal Americans who do want Kerry to win the election, disappeared, obliterated by the weirdoes. And then, of course, if you are the average reporter trying to make a living with a camera, you always prefer to shoot the weirdo rather than Mr. Suburban Father of Three With A Mortgage to Pay.

The picture of Michael Moore and Rev. Jackson here doesn’t lie. They both know what is going very wrong with that demonstration and understand very well that every picture, every footage of that is giving votes away to their arch-enemy.

The whole thing is very unfortunate. American democracy is much more that that. In fact, it is something else. And if a candidate wins an election because of the people who demonstrate against him it is wrong! I want some debate on issues, not a competition to see who can better put to use the bag of dirty communicational tricks (with M. Moore-Goebbels as the judge?)

UPDATE FROM THE CONTRA COSTA TIMES

New York hasn't seen the same unchecked violence on the part of either police or protesters as in the Illinois and Florida conventions, but when it comes to sheer numbers, it's now surpassed them both.

New York police have arrested more than 1,700 people, more than at any other U.S. political convention. And the GOP convention still has a day left, and President Bush's appearance is almost certain to drive protesters to the streets again.

"In the history of political conventions, there have never been so many people demonstrating opposition to their government," former Chicago Seven member Tom Hayden told demonstrators Wednesday.

Police report 1,765 convention-related arrests since last Thursday. At the Republican convention in Miami Beach in 1972, there were 1,129 arrests. Chicago's notorious 1968 street riots resulted in about 588 arrests.

Part of it, protesters say, is that more people have showed up to protest in New York than did in Chicago or Miami.

Organized on the Internet and driven by opposition to the war in Iraq, as well as by economic and social issues, protesters have arrived here in droves. Heavily Democratic New York also has contributed to the protesters' ranks and provided a friendly base of operations.

"To bring a Republican here, you're going to have a lot of problems," said Marie Pride, a New York City middle school teacher who was demonstrating Wednesday.

Go, Marie, go! George W. thanks you so much!

Distressing, puzzling days in France

2004-09-01T22:07:00.000+02:00

The jihadists in Iraq have now turned on France, one of the foremost Western critics of the US invasion. And the reaction in France has been troubling, weird. Since the beginning of the crisis of the two French journalists kidnapped in Iraq and facing the expiry of their captors' ultimatum, the reaction of official France has left me with an increasingly freakish feeling.

The terrorists say they want the French Government to scrap a controversial ban on wearing Islamic head scarves in schools, but it seems that there is more to it than what meets the eye. Something is very wrong from the beginning of the episode… perhaps it is my apprehension that this time the distance is just too big between what the French government is telling the public and what they know by now. I may be wrong, but I feel deeply uneasy when all the mediae in a free country deliver the very same version of a critical event. And that’s exactly what we are experiencing in France these days.

Has it something to do with the fact that the hostages are journalists? Perhaps. It would be ironic since, in the months before the invasion of Iraq by the Coalition of the Willing, the French press participated enthusiastically in whipping up the national mood against the Americans and the British. Now I have the hunch that what is happening goes beyond all that.

People in decisive positions in France are doing a lot of hard thinking right now. Old truths are re-examined and new hypothesis tentatively elicited… in private. Because in public everybody seems busy chassing shadows.

All of France’s officialdom has scrambled, launched an unprecedented diplomatic campaign in the Middle East, sometimes not without some arm twisting, to obtain an unanimous choir of Muslim voices asking for the kidnappers to spare the lives of the French hostages. One could have wished that the emphasis had been on the word hostages rather than, as it has too often been the case, in French. But there are so many weird things going on these days…

First and foremost, very few people have attended the demonstrations and meeting to express support for the hostages. The biggest of them all, yesterday in Paris, attracted only 3,000 people, despite the presence of many first-rank politicians, unionists and TV anchors. On Tuesday, French Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin and Paris mayor Bertrand Delanoe joined prayers at the Paris mosque for the release of the two journalists. The prayer, conducted by Dalil Boubakeur, the president of the French Council for the Muslim Religion, was meant to be a show of solidarity from the good Muslims, but only a few dozens attended. There are over two million Muslims in the Paris region.

Just as a benchmark: on march 20, over 10,000 people marched in Paris to protest the “war against Iraq” and “Yankee imperialism”

Meanwhile, the world delivered its load of jarring news in the global war between terror and democracy. A suicide bomber blew herself in a busy subway station in Moscow. Hamas proudly took responsibility for blowing up two buses in Israel. And a Web site offered a link to a video showing the methodical, grisly killings of 12 Nepalese construction workers kidnapped in Iraq. Not much about that in today’s French press.

UPDATE
From Letters from New York City

400 Children Seized by Chechnyan Rebels
It seems that the tactics of the Abu Sayyaf – a terrorist group run by Bin Laden’s cousins – trained these Chechnyan rebels well in how to attack the heart of a country. This type of attack is a Abu Sayyaf’s signature move when you want to hold a country hostage and bring them to their knees. For a very long time now it has been my concern, that such a thing might happen in a public school here. I hope and pray that I may be very wrong about this. But having lived in the Phillipines for 2 years, I've seen a few times how this will end, and I don't have the heart to follow this story.

UPDATE
From BARCEPUNDIT

THE NEW EXPERTS IN SURRENDER advising the old experts in surrender on how to surrender again:

Spain is providing diplomatic support to secure the release of the two French journalists held hostage in Iraq, Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos said on Wednesday.

"We have placed Spain's diplomatic apparatus as well as those of our intelligence services at the disposal of the French government and we are working with them, we are in contact," former EU Middle East envoy Moratinos told Cadena Ser radio.

"We retain the hope that a solution may be found and that they will be freed," Moratinos said, adding that one of the hostages was "a personal friend" who had interviewed him on several occasions.

Je suis pessimiste

2004-09-01T17:52:00.000+02:00

Je suis assez pessimiste sur l’évolution de la crise des deux otages français an Irak. J’ai bien peur que le sort des deux journalistes a été décidé très vite après leur enlèvement. La rumeur entre les journalistes qui connaissent bien la région est que le groupe responsable du kidnapping aurait pensé d’abord à les libérer, tenant compte de la position française d’opposition à l’intervention américaine en Irak ; cependant, l’ordre est venu d’en haut de le garder, « d’en haut » serait les dirigeants d’al Qaeda.

La décision d’utiliser les deux journalistes comme moyen de pression pour faire chanter le gouvernement français a été donc prise au plus haut niveau du planning stratégique du terrorisme jihadiste en Irak ou peut être même à l’étranger.

Mon pessimisme vient du caractère même de l’exigence des terroristes pour libérer les otages. Elle n’a aucune relation avec le conflit iraquien. Elle est strictement religieuse et par cela même non négociable… Mon seul espoir est que les ravisseurs n’ont pas explicitement inclus la menace de mort dans leur communiqué : ils ont laissé aux otages mêmes la terrible et humiliante besogne de dire que « cela va de nos vies ».

Peut-être parviendra le ministre français des affaires étrangères à offrir une rançon suffisante pour acheter la vie des deux journalistes ; elle sera astronomique et, en tout cas, elle n’interviendra pas avant l’ouverture des écoles demain et la multiplication de démarches de M. Barnier aux quatre coins du Moyen Orient à supplier, voire à mendier des déclarations demandant aux terroristes d’épargner la vie des otages. Un périple que ceux-ci ne manqueront pas de présenter comme l’humiliation définitive du Petit Satan français, la preuve de la supériorité morale des jihadistes face à la décadence et la lâcheté des européens, qui idolâtrent la vie humaine et ne savent pas mourir pour leurs croyances.

Mais j’ai bien peur qu’al Qaeda ne vas pas se contenter de cette victoire préliminaire déjà acquise en tout cas. Je me demande si le gouvernement français n’a pas paniqué. En tout cas il n’a pas fait vraiment preuve de finesse. C’est une erreur que d’avoir eu recours, pour implorer la pitié des terroristes, aux leaders Musulmans mêmes que les jihadistes ne s’embarrassent de traiter de corrompus, traîtres et marionnettes de l’occident. Un exemple serait Arafat, un personnage discrédité et méprisé par les jihadistes. Faire la sourde-oreille à ces prières pourrait être perçu par les leaders terroristes comme une façon de s’approcher d’un de leurs buts stratégiques : la consolidation de leur emprise sur un secteur grandissant des Musulmans dans le monde, de consommer la fracture entre leurs sympathisants –on les chiffre entre 5% et 15% selon les pays- et le reste.
Je n’ai presque jamais eu une telle envie de me tromper.

Pity the Poor Little Satan

2004-08-31T02:05:00.000+02:00

France has been thrown into a national crisis by the abduction in Iraq of two French journalists by the same terrorist band that murdered Enzo Baldoni. The “Islamic Army” said that it wants the French to revoke the law that prohibits the Islamic veil in the schools and gave the French government 48 hours to do so or else… This evening they had the two haggard hostages again on al-Jazeera calling their fellow countrymen to go out and demonstrate against the law that their democratically elected parliament had passed.

The cat plays with the mouse before dinner.

I really believe we are looking at the opening of what is rapidly becoming a major mutation in the jihadist global strategy, a continuation of the fountainhead that were the terrorist attacks in Madrid in march. And I think they are out to prove a couple of doctrinal points to the other Muslims, the moderate ones, the lukewarm, the skeptics…

One of the main points of their rationale for the war against the Christians and the Jews is that the infidels have come to value humanity so much that they border on idolatry, one of the anathemas for Islam. They despise our humanism because they construe it as yet a certification of our raw materialism, our abolishing of God to enthrone, to worship human life. That is the real meaning of one of the most important axioms of jihadism: “They love life, we love death”, recurrent in its propaganda.

What they want to prove is that just by threatening to take two lives they can de-stabilize Little Satan France. It’s like Hitler when he started launching the V1 and V2 on England, trying to convince the Germans, the world and perhaps himself that he had the absolute weapon, the one that could win him a war that seemed already almost lost… The jihadists are telling their fellow Muslims that the Jihad can be won because de Christians and the Jews are weak and decadent… because the way we value human life for them is just a weakness and a sign of degeneration.

Sun-Tzu showed many centuries ago that wars are won by exploiting the adversary’s weakness as much as by thoughtfully putting to use one’s strengths. Now, the most important dictum of the Chinese master is “know thy enemy” and one has to convene that they seem to know us better than we know them.

I live now in France and I have been amazed by the ignorance of all but an elite of specialists regarding the jihadists, appalled at the Byzantine analysis in the mass-media. President Chirac, his government and the media are now suddenly discovering that the terrorists consider them a target… and a soft one at that! And they refuse to see reality in the eyes. They refuse to accept the role of Little Satan that the jihadist scriptwriter has reserved for them.

They go and rush and scramble to line up Muslim leaders who would say that it is wrong (at the very least for tactical reasons) for Islamic terrorists to attack France… They even got Arafat to make a distasteful speech calling his terrorist brothers in Iraq to spare the life of the French hostages. Doesn’t Mr. Chirac know what the jihadists think of Arafat? Arafat, the man who sold and probably still sells to Sharon the cement to build the wall to corral out the Palestinians!

Chirac's minister of Foreign Affairs is now in the Middle East, desperately fishing for sympathetic declarations by the sort of people Osama bin Laden brands as traitors, puppets, apostates, corrupted turncoats etc. Rumor has it that he has been given the authority to pay out a huge ransom to the terrorists in order to secure the liberation of the two journalists…

But the terrorists have just started to show their cards. They may or may not accept the money but, in any event, they want first to humiliate Little Satan France, just to see it beg and show off their power for all the 1,100 M Muslims to see.

Journalistes ET français! [FR]

2004-08-29T17:05:00.000+02:00

click HERE to see a text in english saying more or less the same

L’enlèvement de deux journalistes français par le même groupe terroriste qui a assassiné cette semaine le journaliste italien Enzo Baldoni marque une nouvelle étape dans la guerre des jihadistes « contre les croisés et les juifs ».

C'était dans les cartes. La France est bien un objectif "mou" des islamistes, le pays où ils vont essayer leur stratégie de séparatisme social pour obtenir un statut de dihmi, avec une législation particulière pour les musulmans, basée sur la loi islamique. Les gens qui on crié à Sarkozy que le Coran était leur seule constitution annonçaient ce qui devait fatalement arriver…

L’attitude de la France et de l’Allemagne à propos de la guerre en Iraq n'a pas été lue comme le prétendaient M.M. Chirac et Villepin, comme un signe de poids spécifique géopolitique et d’indépendance vis-à-vis des Etats-Unis sur la scène internationale, mais plutôt comme un indice de frayeur devant la volonté combative des jihadistes et de faiblesse face à la menace terroriste.

Leur logique n’est pas la même qui prévaut à l’Elysé. Les jihadistes lissent la réalité mondiale en termes de guerre de religion et ils n’ont que faire des débats sur le multilateralisme, le monolateralisme etc. Pour eux, le Grand Satan sont les Etats-Unis, et si le petit Satan qu’est la France rameute d’autres pays à l’Onu contre l’intervention en Iraq c’est que la peur du terrorisme chez les français est plus forte que celle que leur produisent des hypothétiques représailles du Grand Satan…

Dans leur stratégie européenne, visant à forcer les gouvernements de l’UE à octroyer aux communautés musulmanes un statut d’autonomie légale et politique basé sur la Shariah, la question du voile islamique prend pour les terroristes une énorme valeur. La loi interdisant son usage dans l’espace du système éducatif a été vécue par les jihadistes comme un défi du petit Satan qu’ils croyaient déjà apprivoisé, résigné à tolérer le communautarisme. Peut-être sont-ils aussi déçus de la faible réaction des musulmans français devant le fait accompli de la loi en question…

Chirac sombre de plus en plus dans une espèce d’autisme doré, à peine capable de rassembler toute son énergie pour se maintenir au pouvoir. En ce qui concerne la politique internationale, il agit en benêt irrémissible, absent d’une réalité qui lui dépasse, incapable d’assimiler les changements en dehors de sa matrice conceptuelle périmée… Et dans son coin, Dominique de Villepin –le dauphin pathétique de l’empereur nu- se dit peut-être que les thèses de Robert Kagan n’étaient pas si farfelues, tout compte fait.

Entre temps, deux hommes sont dans l’angoisse de ne pas savoir s’ils vivent leurs dernières heures. Et cela pour le crime d’être journalistes et français… et la fatalité d’avoir eu un président comme Monsieur Chirac aux commandes de la République une et indivisible.

Zapatero, The Plastic Politician

2004-08-29T01:14:00.000+02:00

A Spanish Update

A few years ago, when Francis Fukuyama wrote about the end of History, (nothing less!), even the military were talking about the peace dividend, and a fair share of my friends and fellow social voyeurs (I mean, journalists, reporters and analysts) thought the time ripe for out-of-the-box prefabricated politicians, the dream of PR buffs and marketing aficionados. They all were daydreaming about citizens voting with their zappers between a sop opera and a reality show, not giving a damn about issues and choosing the best looking, best baby-kissing most politically correct candidate… Well, that was before September 11, 2001. That day we al witnessed the first mass murder transmitted worldwide in real time. History had, at the very least, an appendix and it wasn’t pretty.

That’s why, in the midst of this mean and hobbessian times of ours, I reckon that Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero became Spain’s Prime Minister one historic cycle behind his time. No one had ever seen a better looking, more consistently smiling, faster baby-kisser, grand-ma-hugger and more heinously politically correct candidate. An iconoclast friend of mine in Madrid says of him “Zapatero smiles even when he’s defecating”. But then, there is a darker side. The man is one of those European politicians groomed by some savvy elders in the corridors of party paramountcy, a clever tactician of never-ending maneuvers and power struggles, where opportunity is always more important than contents, where gray is the color and secrecy is the virtue.

In March 11th, a commando of Islamic terrorists blew up four train wagons in Madrid, killing two hundred people. The overwhelming majority were working people on their way to work. That was three days before the date of the general election…

A majority of Spanish voters -- who pre-3/11 had supported the ruling, America-friendly Popular Party -- voted it out, on behalf of Rodriguez Zapatero’s Socialist Workers’ Party. The first thing he did was to withdraw the largely symbolic Spanish military contingent in Iraq, all in all, 1,300 soldiers. The second was to appoint a government made up of staunchly anti-americans. Beyond that, their only visible adeptness for the job was that one half of them were women and, with the comforting exception of the Economy minister, all of them gloriously incompetent.

Spain has now arguably the most harebrained government in decades… but, if their critics don't lie, it may be the most voracious as well...

The Economist this week reached for its reservoir of British understatement to describe the Zapatero style:

“In the finest traditions of Mediterranean democracy, heads have been rolling in every agency under the government’s control –and in many places that are supposed to be independent. There have been purges at think-tanks, the judiciary and the Cervantes Insitute, which represents Spanish culture. The state-owned media, several key embassies, the security services and Madrid’s museums have all seen changes at the top”. The writer then virtuously prays for the government to declare the stock markets off-limits for cronyism and well connected predators and hopes that perhaps Zapatero “may have a chance to break with the excesses of political favor-trading” Amen, God bless you all..

But there is one field in which Zapatero is acting swiftly and decisively. After the terrorist attacks, he has promised to pay a salary to Muslim imams and preachers and ear-marked some US$ 50 M for it. The money will be administered by the Islamic Cult Council of Mansur Escudero, a former communist cadre converted to Islam who used to have a program in Radio Teheran of all places. A characterizing anecdote: Mansur’s second wife, a charismatic Basque who maintained a militant Islamic web site, was murdered a couple of years ago by a contract killer who in his turn was assassinated in jail by some co-detainees who forced him to drink a bottle of paint solvent.

Some scholars, critics of Zapatero, point that classical Muslim jurists divided the world into Dar-al-Islam (Land of Islam) or those territories where the Law of Islam prevails; Dar-al-Harb (Land of War) which includes those countries where Muslim Law is not in force; Dar-al-Ahd (Land of the Covenant) considered as a temporary and often intermediate territory between Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-Harb; and Dar-al-Sulk (House of Truce), territories not conquered by -Muslim troops, where peace is attained by the payment of tribute which guarantees a truce or armistice.

So, are those US$ 50 M the tribute Zapatero has to pay to have peace in our time? (Chamberlain coined that toothsome expression). Well, he may think so and sure enough Mansur Escudero has 50 millions of reasons to tell him that is the case. But it is far from sure that the jihadists share that view… Spain cannot be included in the Dar-al-Sulk because it was once a land conquered by Jihad.

So tells fellow blogger hppauli the story:

To the Muslim, once a land has been conquered in Jihad, that land is forever Muslim. It doesn't matter if someone reconquers it and claims it as their own, the land remains theirs. If the Muslim's had it once, they will "by the will of Allah" have it again. They might fight one war, ten wars, fifty wars, a thousand and lose each time, but one day they will fight the thousand and oneth war and win. The House of Truce is always a temporary situation which might turn to their advantage in the next battle that is fought. Any lands already conquered are in the land of Islam, any not conquered yet, are in the House of War. That means that to their mind, portions of Europe are theirs and they are eager to have them back again. Al Andalus (Spain) is already being reclaimed in many Muslim's minds as theirs.

Tonight I feel just too bedraggled to give my personal opinion on all this.

UPDATE

Urban Empire, an excellent blog in more than one sense had a very kind post recommending this article with a link to THIS POST he wrote on March 15, just three days after the terrorist attacks in madrid Lucid.

Powell se queda en casita [ES]

2004-08-28T11:22:00.000+02:00

Significativa decisión del Secretario de Estado

En un lacónico comunicado, el portavoz del Departamento de Estado, Richard Boucher, comunicó al ministro griego de exteriores Petros Molyviatis que Colin Powell no asistirá a la ceremonia de clausura de los Juegos Olímpicos de Atenas.
La causa aducida y su formulación ("asuntos urgentes que atender en Washington") a mí me parecen elegidos para dejar claro que la suspensión es debida a la oleada de manifestaciones organizadas por la izquierda radical griega en contra de la visita.
Powell da así una sonada muestra de diplomacia pública, algo que vamos a ver cada vez con mayor frecuencia en la política de Washington. En cualquier caso, la suspensión no ha sido seguramente motivada únicamente, ni siquiera en primer lugar, por la voluntad de evitar incidentes callejeros.
El antiamericanismo histérico de un sector de la izquierda europea va de nuevo a convertirse en factor político interno de los países de la UE, en momentos en los que proliferan los signos de preocupación por parte del resto de los sectores políticos ante un divorcio atlántico que ha ido demasiado lejos...
La izquierda radical y los ex-comunistas, aislados, defienden sus cuotas de poder en los movimientos sindicales, a menudo corruptos e impregnados de clientelismo y en la agitación antiimperialista en la calle... La diplomacia pública de Powell es un mensaje a los europeos que no están de acuerdo -a los muchos que están ya hartos- de ver su política exterior condicionada por ese tipo de organizaciones.
La negativa de Powell a asistir a la clausura de los JJOO tiene una segunda lectura; es una campanada en medio de una campaña electoral marcada por una combatividad sin precedentes de los candidatos y en la que Powell suena con insistencia para suceder a un Dick Cheney desgastado y con problemas de salud.
Representa también la afirmación de la tercera vía de las relaciones internacionales americanas, entre la percepción neoconservadora de Charles Krauthammer y el liberalismo internacionalista que se adjudica a John Kerry. ¡No dejéis de leer el último artículo Francis Fukuyama...!

They have murdered Enzo Baldani

2004-08-27T18:30:00.000+02:00

This time they WANTED to murder a journalist.

They want journalists out now because they are losing and the spell is getting weaker. They killed Enzo because he wrote this blog and they sort of didn’t like it. Because he wasn’t telling the story according to the murderers.

Enzo in another war

Well, that’s the end of yet an adventurous life as a professional witness of his time. My memory goes back to my friend Lugo, a French cameramen who got killed in Beirut by a lost ricochet while filming a stampede of a crowd of poor frightened people… The difference is that Lugo got killed by chance, the sort of bad luck that gets you in the way of a bullet that doesn’t know where it was supposed to go and Baldoni has been killed in cold blood, very much in the way those very same bastards killed 200 madrileños on March 11.

In Bagdad

Already a hostage-Putting a Brave Face

Pacifism is a luxury we can't afford anymore.

Now, have a look at Enzo’s blog and think about the future.

16 Year Old Girl Hanged in Iran

2004-08-27T11:23:00.000+02:00

Urban Empire, one of my favorite blogs has this didactic story:

Amnesty International today expressed its outrage at the reported execution of a girl believed to be 16 years old for “acts incompatible with chastity”. Ateqeh Rajabi was reportedly publicly hanged on a street in the city centre of Neka, northern Iran, on 15 August 2004.
Amnesty International is alarmed that this execution was carried out despite reports that Ateqeh Rajabi was not believed to be mentally competent, and that she reportedly did not have access to a lawyer at any stage.
During the trial the judge allegedly severely criticised her dress, harshly reprimanding her. It is alleged that Ateqeh Rajabi was mentally ill both at the time of her crime (having sexual relations outside of wedlock) and during her trial proceedings. (via Blogs of War)
John Little writes:
The government of Iran is seriously out of touch with the youth and other moderate elements of it’s society.
And Urban Empire, quite sensibly says:
I don't think the problem, in this case, is the government being out of touch with the youth. It's that the government of Iran is a medieval theocracy with a strict form of shariah as its penal code. News like this needs to get wider attention in the international media.

The Unsteady Destiny of Dick Cheney

2004-08-26T22:59:00.000+02:00

Are we in for a re-formulation of American politics?

Over half the delegates to the Republican convention (to be held in NYC next week) seem to be disposed to put forward a new running companion for George W. Bush, would Dick Cheney leave (voluntarily?) the ticket. Fasten your seat belts!

Colin Powell and Rudolph Zero-Tolerance Giuliani top the unofficial but very real list to succeed Cheney. Now, Mr. Bush will repeat to friends and foes alike that his support of Cheney is beyond discussion; no delegates would dare to say loud that the vice-president is more part of the problem than of the solution to a bitterly contested election… but whisper they do. To compound matters, AP did ingenuously survey the delegates and found out exactly how much they all love Powell and Giuliani, or, if you prefer, bought the right to go and print what everybody knows privately.

But some delegates still remember that Powell turned down Bush’s offers to run with him in 2000. And most of them believe that, like Martin Luther King, he has a dream: to become the first non white president of the USA. I think they are right about Powell’s presidential ambitions and I believe that a dreadful lot of citizens would vote for him if he runs in 2008, including a fair share of the ones who, like myself, are now leaning towards Kerry… So, perhaps he won’t be very enthusiastic about running this time. Then, of course, you may be willing to bet that Giuliani would surely love to be the first Italian-American tenant of the White House. But we are in 2004 and ahead we all have four years of this war that will probably outlast a couple of presidents
So, what about Condoleazza Rice? I reckon Bush would love her on the ticket and so would I. Longer shots would be senator John McCain or even Bill Frist, his being from Tennessee not withstanding.

But is Cheney to step aside? Nothing is less sure. Campaign pundits swear that replacing Cheney never has been actively considered. It is true that campaign officials aren’t exactly reputed for their trustworthiness (at least during the campaign!)… And the pressure to bring the GOP more toward the moderate center is building up.
Dick Cheney is 63 and has had four heart attacks since 1978, the most recent in November 2000… you sure remember that election!

Islamic Clerics Cause Polio Outbreak In Africa

2004-08-25T23:29:00.000+02:00

BBC NEWS / Health / Africa faces new polio threat

Africa could be on the verge of a major polio outbreak, the World Health Organization has warned.
Mali and Guinea have reported their first cases of the disease in five years. Three cases have also been reported in the Darfur region of Sudan.
The WHO had previously predicted that polio could be eradicated by the end of this year.
These latest cases are being blamed on problems vaccinating people in parts of Nigeria last year.
Islamic clerics in Kano state condemned immunisation campaigns as an American plot to make Muslim women infertile.
Unable to vaccinate in the region, the WHO tried to prevent polio spreading further by protecting people in neighbouring countries.
However, Guinea and Mali were outside the ring of countries targeted by WHO and the United Nations Children's fund (UNICEF) in an immunisation campaign launched in February.
Ten African countries, which had previously eradicated the virus, have now reported new cases.

'Big implications'

Bruce Aylward, co-ordinator of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, said the latest cases suggested efforts to contain the virus were not working.
"This is an extremely important development," he said. "Earlier this year, we had conducted a synchronised campaign in a group of countries around Nigeria and Niger".
"What we are seeing is the virus actually breaking beyond that into a second tier of countries - so very big implications."
The WHO is worried that a major polio outbreak could be around the corner. The high season for polio transmission begins in September.
Officials have drawn up plans to mount three vaccination campaigns in 22 African countries, over the next 12 months.
It's aimed at halting the present outbreak, and banishing polio from the continent forever.
But as yet there aren't enough funds to carry it out - US$50m is needed by the end of this year alone. There are also questions over whether people will accept the vaccination teams.
Kano leaders recently changed their stance and a four-day campaign took place. However, it is estimated that only 60% of children were brought forward, which is not enough to stem the virus. [Read my comment below]
Polio is a highly infectious disease caused by a virus, which invades the nervous system. It can cause total paralysis in a matter of hours.
The disease can strike at any age but mainly affects children under three years of age.

My Comment:
The fatwa against the polio vaccin has been endorsed again last month by the clerics of the Supreme Council for the Shariah. Indeed, because of pressure from many instances, including the Islamic Conference in Instambul, the self-styled governor of Kano, who last year enforced an outright ban on vaccination to comply with the fatwa, did finally yield two months ago and accept the WHO teams to come back. Too late, too little... The clerics just accused him to bow to western propaganda and called anew all muslims to refuse vaccination.

When the WHO teams tried to do their work in the rural areas of Northern Nigeria, parents would hide their children from them or attack the nurses shouting the usual "Allah U Akbar" and "Allah will know the believers".

Hundreds, thousands of African children will contract polio because of those scoundrels. Will they ever pay for this crime?

Huye el clérigo asesino [ES]

2004-08-25T11:20:00.000+02:00

Muktadar el Sadr ha huido de Nayaf, abandonando a su suerte a sus fanáticos seguidores. Para los amateurs de la propaganda negra en la prensa española, aquí os pongo una crónica, refundida de agencias y publicada en El Correo de Bilbao, con algunos términos trigger resaltados...

El incierto futuro de Irak

Los blindados de EE UU, situados a menos de 20 metros del mausoleo del imán Alí en Nayaf

Los francotiradores estadounidenses disparan contra toda persona que entra o sale del recinto

AGENCIAS / NAYAF

Los blindados estadounidenses están situados hoy a menos de 20 metros de la puerta del mausoleo del imán Alí en Nayaf (centro sur de Irak), donde están atrincherados los milicianos chiíes del líder religioso Moqtada Sadr, según informó un corresponsal de la agencia France Presse.

Las fuerzas estadounidenses retomaron a primera hora de la mañana los disparos de artillería contra las posiciones de la milicia de Sadr en las proximidades de la mezquita.

El avance hacia el mausoleo de la ciudad santa chií fue por dos flancos, y comenzó hacia la 07.30 hora local (03.30 GMT), después de que la artillería efectuara varios disparos contra supuestas posiciones adelantadas de la milicia leal al clérigo radical Muqtada Al Sadr.

Según fuentes oficiales iraquíes citada por la radio Dijla (Tigris), los milicianos dispararon de forma insistente antes de retroceder hacia la mezquita del imán Ali Ben Taleb. A medianoche, un avión artillado C-130 atacó por cuarta noche consecutiva reductos de la milicia situados en torno al mausoleo, en el casco antiguo de Nayaf.

Los disparos comenzaron a las 6:30 locales (4:30 en la España peninsular), precisó el sargento Trevor Candelan. Ayer a mediodía, las fuerzas iraquíes se unieron a los soldados estadounidenses en Nayaf, indicó Candelan, que añadió que la noche había sido relativamente tranquila.

El avance de los tanques y los blindados sigue al cerco impuesto por las fuerzas iraquíes desplegadas ayer para encabezar el asalto al mausoleo, en el que se cobijan varios cientos de milicianos y civiles.

Francotiradores

Un avión americano disparó un misil hacia las 10:30 (08:30 en España) de esta mañana a pocos metros al oeste del mausoleo del imam Alí que hicieron temblar el edificio, según constató un periodista de AFP.

Asimismo, todas las entradas al mausoleo del imam Alí, en Nayaf, se encuentran sometidas esta mañana al fuego de los francotiradores estadounidenses, por lo que nadie puede entrar o salir del recinto.

Los milicianos impiden el paso por la puerta de entrada principal, que se encuentra en el sur, debido a los francotiradores estadounidenses que disparan contra toda persona que entra o sale del recinto. Al norte, la puerta está cerrada desde hace varios días por las mismas razones.

Propaganda Tactics and Fahrenheit 9/11 [EN]

2004-08-24T01:04:00.000+02:00

Click For Michael Moore

I promised a A Primer in Propaganda and Perception Hijacking using Farhenheit 9/11 as a benchmark and an illustrious exemple, and I'm still working on it. So, while doing research -thanks, Google- I have found that some one had done something very similar.

Meet Dr. Kelton Rhoads who just posted on the net his 31 pages long draft of Propaganda Tactics and Fahrenheit 9/11 (PDF). After gulping about one third of it, I feel that I had to recommend this reading. Well written, better argued.

I’ll post a critique when I’m through.

Here is Rhoads’ first paragraph:

I had my nose buried in books on the subject of propaganda analysis during June 2004, when Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 was released. So it’s embarrassing to admit I didn’t immediately recognize something big was happening in my field, and that it was as close as my local theater: “feature-length movie-house agitprop,” as one commentator called it, which he correctly recognized as “a relatively rare and new thing.”1 With a few notable exceptions, such as Leni Riefenstahl’s work, propaganda has made a poor showing at the box office. Hollywood tried its hand at “message films” following World War II, but it was quickly discovered that “most people do not go to the movies to have their consciences disturbed.” Subsequent research has shown that individual movies rarely bring about major changes of opinion.4 Maybe that’s why I was slow to see Moore’s inferno. Still—you’d think that a professor and psychological consultant who considers his expertise to be influence and persuasion, would have gotten to the theater sooner. But I finally did, and for those (admittedly few) of us who marvel at the virtuoso application of persuasion techniques, I’ll say that Fahrenheit 9/11 was a fine education.

REVEREND MURDER

2004-08-23T18:42:00.000+02:00

Just got it over the Internet...

De l'antisémitisme à l'antiaméricanisme [FR]

2004-08-23T01:18:00.000+02:00

par Per Ahlmark
L'antisémitisme, l'anti-sionisme et l'antiaméricanisme sont de plus en plus virulents et accointés les uns aux autres dans l'Europe d'aujourd'hui. Ils trouvent leur source dans une espèce d'aveuglement combiné avec un étrange mélange d'aliénation, de sentiment de culpabilité et de peur envers Israël et les USA.

Des millions d'Européens évitent de voir en Israël un pays qui lutte pour sa survie. Israël ne peut se permettre de perdre une seule guerre d'importance, car ce serait la fin de cet Etat juif et démocratique. Mais beaucoup d'Européens pensent que les Israéliens font une erreur à la base : ils se refusent à tout compromis et préfèrent utiliser les moyens militaires pour résoudre des problèmes politiques.

L'attitude européenne est sensiblement la même à l'égard des USA. "Regardez l'Europe", disent nombre d'Européens, "Nous avons éradiqué la guerre, les dangers du nationalisme et la dictature. Nous avons crée une Union européenne pacifique. Nous ne faisons pas de guerre, nous négocions. Nous ne gaspillons pas nos richesses dans l'armement. Le reste de la planète pourrait nous prendre en exemple pour apprendre à vivre en paix". En tant que Suédois, j'ai entendu toute ma vie ce genre de vantardise pacifiste : la Suède, pays neutre, est une superpuissance morale. Maintenant cette fanfaronnade est devenue l'idéologie de l'UE : "Nous sommes le continent de la moralité." C'est la "suédisation" de l'Europe.

Il est vrai que l'existence de l'Union européenne tient du miracle sur un continent qui a donné naissance à deux totalitarismes, le communisme et le nazisme, qui sont à l'origine de gigantesques bains de sang. Mais l'Europe oublie comment ces idéologies ont été vaincues. Sans l'armée américaine, l'Europe de l'Ouest n'aurait pas été libérée en 1945. Sans le plan Marshall et l'OTAN, elle n'aurait pas redémarré économiquement. Sans la politique de confinement sous le parapluie américain, l'Armée rouge aurait étouffé le rêve de liberté en Europe de l'Est et aurait unifié l'Europe, mais sous un drapeau d'étoiles rouges.

Les Européens de l'Ouest ont aussi oublié que certaines régions du monde n'ont jamais connu la liberté. Dans beaucoup de pays, les salles de torture sont la norme et non pas des bavures grotesques et honteuses de troupes mal encadrées. Dans ce contexte, toute tentative de se comporter à l'européenne en négociant - sans la force militaire pour appuyer la diplomatie - est tout simplement vouée à l'échec.

Plutôt que d'aider ceux qui combattent le terrorisme international, beaucoup d'Européens rejettent la responsabilité de son accroissement sur Israël et les USA ; c'est une nouvelle illusion européenne. Dans le style munichois, l'adoption récente d'une attitude conciliante par l'Espagne s'enracine dans cette forme de pensée.

Que se serait-il passé si l'Espagne et toute l'Europe avaient réagi d'une manière diamétralement opposée à l'attentat de Madrid en avril en disant : "A cause de ce massacre, nous allons redoubler d'effort dans notre engagement pour stabiliser l'Irak en envoyant deux fois plus de troupes, d'experts, d'ingénieurs, de professeurs, de policiers, de médecins, ainsi que des milliards de dollars pour aider les forces alliées et leurs partenaires irakiens." Le triomphe des terroristes aurait été transformé en un triomphe de la guerre contre le terrorisme.

L'image que beaucoup d'Européens se font de l'Amérique et d'Israël crée un climat politique propice à de terribles préjugés. "Vous avez le grand Satan et le petit Satan, l'Amérique veut dominer le monde", exactement les accusations portées contre les Juifs dans la plus pure rhétorique antisémite. Pour la propagande anti-sioniste moderne, Israël cherche à dominer tout le Moyen-Orient. Ces idées se retrouvent dans les sondages qui montrent que les Européens voient dans Israël et les USA les véritables obstacles à la paix dans le monde.

L'écrivain britannique Ian Buruma estime que la rage antiaméricaine et anti-israélienne de l'Europe touche à un sentiment de culpabilité et de peur. Les deux guerres mondiales ont conduit à de tels carnages que le "jamais plus çà" a été traduit en "bien-être chez soi et non-intervention à l'extérieur". Le problème avec cette idée est qu'elle ne peut être appliquée que sous la protection de la puissance américaine.

L'extrémisme antiaméricain et anti-sioniste sont en train de fusionner. Le slogan soi-disant pacifiste "Hitler a deux fils : Bush et Sharon" qui fleurit en Europe dans les manifestations contre la guerre banalise le nazisme tout en diabolisant ses victimes et ceux qui l'ont défait.

Cela vient en grande partie d'un sentiment de culpabilité sous-jacent de l'Europe qui est lié à l'Holocauste. Les victimes de l'Holocauste - avec leurs enfants et leurs petits-enfants - feraient aux autres ce qu'on leur a fait. En mettant sur le même plan l'assassin et sa victime, nous nous en lavons les mains.

Ce mélange d'anti-sionisme et d'antiaméricanisme revient sans cesse. Le "méchant Israélien" et le "méchant Américain" semblent faire partie d'une même famille. "Le Juif hideux" devient l'outil d'une campagne de diffamation dans laquelle les "néoconservateurs", ainsi qu'on les appelle, sont responsables à la fois du militarisme américain et des brutalités israéliennes. Ceux qui sont dénoncés s'appellent comme par hasard Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, Kristol, etc. C'est la version moderne du vieux mythe qui veut que ce soient les Juifs qui gouvernent les USA.

Récemment, le rédacteur en chef de Die Zeit, Josef Joffe, a mis le doigt sur le fond du problème : comme les Juifs, les Américains seraient égoïstes et arrogants. Comme les Juifs, ils seraient prisonniers du fondamentalisme religieux qui leur donne la conviction d'être dans leur droit et les rend dangereux. Comme les Juifs, les Américains seraient des capitalistes avides pour lesquels l'argent est la valeur première. "Les USA et Israël ont été fondés par des exclus, tout comme les Juifs l'ont été de tout temps", explique-t-il.

Les liens entre l'antisémitisme, l'anti-sionisme et l'antiaméricanisme sont indéniables. A moins que les dirigeants européens condamnent sans ambiguïté cette triple alliance sinistre, elle va empoisonner la politique au Moyen-Orient et les relations transatlantiques.

Per Ahlmark est ancien vice-Premier ministre de Suède.

Ideología Islámica (1)LA ESCLAVITUD [ES]

2004-08-22T15:02:00.000+02:00

Los neoislamistas tratan de volver a llevar a la sociedad a la edad media.
Hay que decir que son consecuentes y radicales en su negación de la modernidad, que consideran atea e impía. Por ejemplo, reivindican -nada menos-
volver a legalizar la esclavitud

Texto tomado del sitio web del Islam de México

Niños esclavos rescatados por una ONG son devueltos a su pueblo por el intermediario árabe

"...De la misma manera, la esclavitud debe ser comprendida bajo el punto de vista islámico. La esclavitud es parte constante e ineludible de la situación humana. El Islam jamás la ha abolido; tal decreto de abolición no aparece en parte alguna. Lo cierto es que la esclavitud forma parte importante de la Ley Islámica (una cuarta parte del al-Muwatta habla de sus estrictas reglas). La Ley Islámica sitúa al esclavo bajo la custodia doméstica y le asegura ropa y alimentos, en igualdad con el dueño de la casa. Y algo aún más importante: el Islam no considera la esclavitud una desgracia. El esclavo puede obtener su libertad por matrimonio o por medios económicos. Por su esencia, el esclavo trasciende los grados desde la base de la sociedad a los puestos más elevados. Toda la élite de gobierno del estado Osmani fueron esclavos. Desde la esposa de Suleimán el Magnífico a la madre del sultán Abdalhamid, las poderosas, políticamente hablando, esposas de los sultanes habían sido esclavas.

No podemos ignorar que la esclavitud, al ser un hecho inevitable, cuando se esquiva no hace más que metamorfosearse bajo un nombre diferente careciendo por completo de cualquier protección legal. Su alternativa no es la “libertad” del mismo modo que en la situación post-dhimmi tampoco lo es la “igualdad”. El esclavo moderno es, por supuesto, el llamado refugiado político. El refugiado está condenado a la degradación social y al estatus que ofrecen los campos de concentración: impotentes y permanentes ciudadanos de ninguna parte sin patria ni estado. Vietnamitas de Hong Kong, hutus, ruandeses, afganos, tibetanos, palestinos y las masacradas víctimas de Sabra y Shatila. Todos ellos son parte de la esclavitud institucionalizada, vigilada y no liberada por la Comisión de Refugiados de la ONU.

La siguiente vez que alguien os diga que esta gente practica una religión como las demás...

Cartoon enviado por L.Cifuentes de C.Juarez

VISITA EL PORTAL CONTRA LA ESCLAVITUD

Revisiting the Al Qaeda Manual [EN]

2004-08-22T12:50:00.000+02:00

The Al Qaeda Manual - Index (On the Disaster Center)

Sometimes, people don't know what they talk about. For instance, how many of the people out there pontifying about al Qaeda know that the first sentence of their operative manual contains a reference to Socrate, Plato and Aristotle?

And yet, who can win a war without knowing the enemy?

I invite you to read this manual, think and decide, first, if we are at war or not. Then you can make an educated choice, whether you want to fight the war, or remain neutral or join the enemy…

So thus begins the Al Qaeda Manual:

The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates..., Platonic ideals..., nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.

Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils.

They are established as they [always]have been

by pen and gun
by word and bullet
by tongue and teeth

Pledge, O Sister
To the sister believer whose clothes the criminals have stripped off .
To the sister believer whose hair the oppressors have shaved.
To the sister believer who's body has been abused by the human dogs.
To the sister believer whose...

Pledge, O Sister
Covenant, O Sister ...to make their women widows and their children orphans.
Covenant, O Sister ...to make them desire death and hate appointments and prestige.
Covenant, O Sister...to slaughter them like lambs and let the Nile,al-Asi,and Euphrates rivers flow with their blood.
Covenant, O Sister...to be a pick of destruction for every godless and apostate regime.
Covenant, O Sister...to retaliate for you against every dog who touch you even with a bad word.

In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate

Thanks be to Allah. We thank him, turn to him, ask his forgiveness, and seek refuge in him from our wicked souls and bad deeds. Whomever Allah enlightens will not be misguided, and the deceiver will never be guided.

I declare that there is no god but Allah alone; he has no partners.

I also declare that Mohammed is his servant and prophet.

Go to The Al Qaeda Manual - Index (On the Disaster Center)

Another link (On Al Qaeda Watch)

Bush Bashing Nears Overkill [EN]

2004-08-22T11:01:00.000+02:00

Thanks to Michael Moore and his 100 M US$ in ticket sales, it has become fashionable to portray the Bush administration as a threat to America and the world, filled with bullying religiosity, brash militarism and bizarre views on everything, from gay marriage to parking tickets. Just a bunch of Jewish neo-cons vying to trick us all into letting them to dominate the world.

I think the whole fad (movies, a litany of books, cartoons and after-hours talk shows) starts to smack of overkill.

I mean, their bidding to make that man look repellent is so hysterical, the rhetoric is so overwrought –often crudely indulging in the techniques of subliminal advertising, like Moore but with less art- that Bush’s image starts to emerge revamped, more sympathetic by the day.

In the next election, I personally tend to favor Kerry. My choice doesn’t mean that I think that Bush has been a bad president, let alone the unsavory character concocted by people like Ted Rall. I just have the hunch that, in the actual situation, with this war to be fought, Kerry may be a better president; I do feel that George W. Bush really needs a rest. But now all this hateful, unrelenting Bush bashing is sort of chafing my rationale for voting Kerry into office. Seeing the greed and the hysteria of many of those Bush bashers, I feel so bone-tired that the temptation to support him surges almost naturally from the bottom of my aesthetical little me… Long live the under dog! And then suddenly I start feeling that Bonanza was a dam’ good TV show.

Overkill and perception conveyance. Man, do we live in a nasty world!

Postmodern Jihad: What Osama bin Laden learned from the Left [EN]

2004-08-22T08:48:00.000+02:00

A classic article on the roots of jihadism
Un artículo ya clásico y fundamental sobre las raíces del jihadismo
Un article devenu classique et fondamental pour comprendre le jihadisme
by Waller R. Newell

MUCH HAS BEEN WRITTEN about Osama bin Laden's Islamic fundamentalism; less about the contribution of European Marxist postmodernism to bin Laden's thinking. In fact, the ideology by which al Qaeda justifies its acts of terror owes as much to baleful trends in Western thought as it does to a perversion of Muslim beliefs. Osama's doctrine of terror is partly a Western export.

To see this, it is necessary to revisit the intellectual brew that produced the ideology of Third World socialism in the 1960s. A key figure here is the German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), who not only helped shape several generations of European leftists and founded postmodernism, but also was a leading supporter of the Nazis. Heidegger argued for the primacy of "peoples" in contrast with the alienating individualism of "modernity." In order to escape the yoke of Western capitalism and the "idle chatter" of constitutional democracy, the "people" would have to return to its primordial destiny through an act of violent revolutionary "resolve."

Heidegger saw in the Nazis just this return to the blood-and-soil heritage of the authentic German people. Paradoxically, the Nazis embraced technology at its most advanced to shatter the iron cage of modernity and bring back the purity of the distant past. And they embraced terror and violence to push beyond the modern present--hence the term "postmodern"--and vault the people back before modernity, with its individual liberties and market economy, to the imagined collective austerity of the feudal age.

This vision of the postmodernist revolution went straight from Heidegger into the French postwar Left, especially the works of Jean-Paul Sartre, eager apologist for Stalinism and the Cultural Revolution in China. Sartre's prot g , the Algerian writer Frantz Fanon, crystallized the Third World variant of postmodernist revolution in "The Wretched of the Earth" (1961). From there, it entered the world of Middle Eastern radicals. Many of the leaders of the Shiite revolution in Iran that deposed the modernizing shah and brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power in 1979 had studied Fanon's brand of Marxism. Ali Shari'at, the Sorbonne-educated Iranian sociologist of religion considered by many the intellectual father of the Shiite revolution, translated "The Wretched of the Earth" and Sartre's "Being and Nothingness into Persian." The Iranian revolution was a synthesis of Islamic fundamentalism and European Third World socialism.

In the postmodernist leftism of these revolutionaries, the "people" supplanted Marx's proletariat as the agent of revolution. Following Heidegger and Fanon, leaders like Lin Piao, ideologist of the Red Guards in China, and Pol Pot, student of leftist philosophy in France before becoming a founder of the Khmer Rouge, justified revolution as a therapeutic act by which non-Western peoples would regain the dignity they had lost to colonial oppressors and to American-style materialism, selfishness, and immorality. A purifying violence would purge the people of egoism and hedonism and draw them back into a primitive collective of self-sacrifice.

MANY ELEMENTS in the ideology of al Qaeda--set forth most clearly in Osama bin Laden's 1996 "Declaration of War Against America"--derive from this same mix. Indeed, in Arab intellectual circles today, bin Laden is already being likened to an earlier icon of Third World revolution who renounced a life of privilege to head for the mountains and fight the American oppressor, Che Guevara. According to Cairo journalist Issandr Elamsani, Arab leftist intellectuals still see the world very much in 1960s terms. "They are all ex-Sorbonne, old Marxists," he says, "who look at everything through a postcolonial prism."

Just as Heidegger wanted the German people to return to a foggy, medieval, blood-and-soil collectivism purged of the corruptions of modernity, and just as Pol Pot wanted Cambodia to return to the Year Zero, so does Osama dream of returning his world to the imagined purity of seventh-century Islam. And just as Fanon argued that revolution can never accomplish its goals through negotiation or peaceful reform, so does Osama regard terror as good in itself, a therapeutic act, quite apart from any concrete aim. The willingness to kill is proof of one's purity.

According to journalist Robert Worth, writing in the New York Times on the intellectual roots of Islamic terror, bin Laden is poorly educated in Islamic theology. A wealthy playboy in his youth, he fell under the influence of radical Arab intellectuals of the 1960s who blended calls for Marxist revolution with calls for a pure Islamic state.

Many of these men were imprisoned and executed for their attacks on Arab regimes; Sayyid Qutb, for example, a major figure in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, was executed in Egypt in 1965. But their ideas lived on. Qutb's intellectual progeny included Fathi Yakan, who likened the coming Islamic revolution to the French and Russian revolutions, Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian activist killed in a car bombing in 1989, and Safar Al-Hawali, a Saudi fundamentalist frequently jailed by the Saudi government. As such men dreamed of a pure Islamic state, European revolutionary ideology was seldom far from their minds. Wrote Fathi Yakan, "The groundwork for the French Revolution was laid by Rousseau, Voltaire and Montesquieu; the Communist Revolution realized plans set by Marx, Engels and Lenin....The same holds true for us as well."

The influence of Qutb's "Signposts on the Road" [also known as "Milestones"](1964) is clearly traceable in pronouncements by Islamic Jihad, the group that would justify its assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981 as a step toward ending American domination of Egypt and ushering in a pure Islamic order. In the 1990s, Islamic Jihad would merge with al Qaeda, and Osama's "Declaration of War Against America" in turn would show an obvious debt to the Islamic Jihad manifesto "The Neglected Duty."

It can be argued, then, that the birthplace of Osama's brand of terrorism was Paris 1968, when, amid the student riots and radical teach-ins, the influence of Sartre, Fanon, and the new postmodernist Marxist champions of the "people's destiny" was at its peak. By the mid '70s, according to Claire Sterling's "The Terror Network," "practically every terrorist and guerrilla force to speak of was represented in Paris. . . . The Palestinians especially were there in force." This was the heyday of Yasser Arafat's terrorist organization Al Fatah, whose 1968 tract "The Revolution and Violence" has been called "a selective precis of 'The Wretched of the Earth.'"

While Al Fatah occasionally still used the old-fashioned Leninist language of class struggle, the increasingly radical groups that succeeded it perfected the melding of Islamism and Third World socialism. Their tracts blended Heidegger and Fanon with calls to revive a strict Islamic social order. "We declare," says the Shiite terrorist group Hezbollah in its "Open Letter to the Downtrodden in Lebanon and the World" (1985), "that we are a nation that fears only God" and will not accept "humiliation from America and its allies and the Zionist entity that has usurped the sacred Islamic land." The aim of violent struggle is "giving all our people the opportunity to determine their fate." But that fate must follow the prescribed course: "We do not hide our commitment to the rule of Islam, . . . which alone guarantees justice and dignity for all and prevents any new imperialist attempt to infiltrate our country. . . . This Islamic resistance must . . . with God's help receive from all Muslims in all parts of the world utter support."

These 1980s calls to revolution could have been uttered last week by Osama bin Laden. Indeed, the chief doctrinal difference between the radicals of several decades ago and Osama only confirms the influence of postmodernist socialism on the latter: Whereas Qutb and other early Islamists looked mainly inward, concentrating on revolution in Muslim countries, Osama directs his struggle primarily outward, against American hegemony. While for the early revolutionaries, toppling their own tainted regimes was the principal path to the purified Islamic state, for Osama, the chief goal is bringing America to its knees.

THE RELATIONSHIP between postmodernist European leftism and Islamic radicalism is a two-way street: Not only have Islamists drawn on the legacy of the European Left, but European Marxists have taken heart from Islamic terrorists who seemed close to achieving the longed-for revolution against American hegemony. Consider Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, two leading avatars of postmodernism. Foucault was sent by the Italian daily Corriere della Sera to observe the Iranian revolution and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Like Sartre, who had rhapsodized over the Algerian revolution, Foucault was enthralled, pronouncing Khomeini "a kind of mystic saint." The Frenchman welcomed "Islamic government" as a new form of "political spirituality" that could inspire Western radicals to combat capitalist hegemony.

Heavily influenced by Heidegger and Sartre, Foucault was typical of postmodernist socialists in having neither concrete political aims nor the slightest interest in tangible economic grievances as motives for revolution. To him, the appeal of revolution was aesthetic and voyeuristic: "a violence, an intensity, an utterly remarkable passion." For Foucault as for Fanon, Hezbollah, and the rest down to Osama, the purpose of violence is not to relieve poverty or adjust borders. Violence is an end in itself. Foucault exalts it as "the craving, the taste, the capacity, the possibility of an absolute sacrifice." In this, he is at one with Osama's followers, who claim to love death while the Americans "love Coca-Cola."

Derrida, meanwhile, reacted to the collapse of the Soviet Union by calling for a "new international." Whereas the old international was made up of the economically oppressed, the new one would be a grab bag of the culturally alienated, "the dispossessed and the marginalized": students, feminists, environmentalists, gays, aboriginals, all uniting to combat American-led globalization. Islamic fundamentalists were obvious candidates for inclusion.

And so it is that in the latest leftist potboiler, "Empire," Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri depict the American-dominated global order as today's version of the bourgeoisie. Rising up against it is Derrida's "new international." Hardt and Negri identify Islamist terrorism as a spearhead of "the postmodern revolution" against "the new imperial order." Why? Because of "its refusal of modernity as a weapon of Euro-American hegemony."

"Empire" is currently flavor of the month among American postmodernists. It is almost eerily appropriate that the book should be the joint production of an actual terrorist, currently in jail, and a professor of literature at Duke, the university that led postmodernism's conquest of American academia. In professorial hands, postmodernism is reduced to a parlor game in which we "deconstruct" great works of the past and impose our own meaning on them without regard for the authors' intentions or the truth or falsity of our interpretations. This has damaged liberal education in America. Still, it doesn't kill people--unlike the deadly postmodernism out there in the world. Heirs to Heidegger and his leftist devotees, the terrorists don't limit themselves to deconstructing texts. They want to deconstruct the West, through acts like those we witnessed on September 11.

What the terrorists have in common with our armchair nihilists is a belief in the primacy of the radical will, unrestrained by traditional moral teachings such as the requirements of prudence, fairness, and reason. The terrorists seek to put this belief into action, shattering tradition through acts of violent revolutionary resolve. That is how al Qaeda can ignore mainstream Islam, which prohibits the deliberate killing of noncombatants, and slaughter innocents in the name of creating a new world, the latest in a long line of grimly punitive collectivist utopias.

Waller R. Newell is professor of political science and philosophy at Carleton University in Ottawa.

Istvan Szabo On Lies, Fiction & Michael Moore [EN]

2004-08-21T02:53:00.000+02:00

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) -- Hungarian director Istvan Szabo has criticized documentaries by American filmmakers, saying movies such as Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and Morgan Spurlock's "Super Size Me" were fictions "with elements from the real life."
"I don't believe in documentary," Szabo, jury president for the Copenhagen International Film Festival, told reporters. The festival, which opened Thursday, will run through Aug. 29.

Szabo said Moore's documentary about President Bush, the terror attacks and the Iraq war, and the movie in which Spurlock goes on a McDonald's-only eating binge for 30 days to dramatize America's growing obesity problem, "are fictions with elements from the real life."

He got up from his chair and gesticulated to show that a director can choose whatever angle he wants to show "a little bit of reality only."

"The question is always who is paying the guy behind the camera," he said.

The Hungarian filmmaker, whose latest film is "Being Julia," starring Annette Bening and Jeremy Irons, said he prefers fiction because actors play roles and sets and dresses are specially created.

"The fiction genre is honest because everyone knows from the beginning that it is a lie," he said.

Bon appetit, Marwan [EN]

2004-08-20T11:59:00.000+02:00

To say that radical Palestinians have little luck with their leaders would be plain understatement. Arafat and his cronies belong into the Guinness Book of Records of callousness, corruption, graft and hypocrisy. Now it's been Marwan Barghouti, the jailed leader of the Tazin militia and one of the possible succesors to 75 year-old Arafat.

	To deviate attention from the popular uprising against Arafat and the snowballing Cementgate, the Palestinian Authority leadership had ordered that all Palestinian prisoners go on hunger strike. It began on Sunday and 2,100 are said to participate inside and outside the jails, since civilian leaders
Marwan Barghouti, the boss

and the population are invited to fast in solidarity.
So far so good. But Wednesday the Israel Prisons Service distributed pictures of Marwan Barghouti caught on camera eating lunch and eagerly cleaning the dish. He had previously covered the window of his cell before he began eating, to avoid being seen from the outside. But the evil Israelis had a micro-camera, not bigger than an American dime, hidden in the cell. His lawyer said first that it was old footage. Now he protests against the blatant invasion of privacy and says that Zionists are imitating the Iraqi prisons infamous procedures.

Members of the Tanzim at
a demonstration in Gaza

Bon appetit, Marwan...

ARAFAT: EL CEMENTO DE LA VERGÜENZA [ES]

2004-08-19T12:13:00.000+02:00

Como periodista he tenido muy pocas oportunidades de escribir editoriales. Luego, los medios para los que me ha tocado trabajar eran casi siempre del tipo que no aprecian que los escribidores den rienda suelta a sus emociones. Pero bueno, la revolución del blogging me permite liberarme y decir lo que me parece al mundo. Lo que me parece Arafat, esa sabandija sin entrañas que ha vendido el cemento para construir el muro de la separación de Sharon mientras lo denunciaba como crímen contra la humanidad. Yo ya sabía que ese individuo era una basura, pero esta vez, ya en la etapa final, ha logrado superar todas sus maldades desde el primer asesinato.

En diciembre de 1983, cuando Arafat abandonó Tripolí en el Líbano rumbo al exilio en Túnez, yo llevaba ya cubriendo la zona bastante tiempo. Con algún paréntesis centroamericano, estaba en ello desde la revolución iraní que derrocó al Sha en 1979. Había vivido el terror islámico en Teherán, con las ejecuciones en los columpios escolares y las farolas, los prolegómenos del conflicto Irán-Iraq, la invasión del Líbano por los israelíes, el cerco de Beirut, las matanzas de sabra y Shatilah por la falange cristiana... Había visto mucha corrupción, hipocresía y traición, casi siempre por parte de los líderes árabes -bueno, musulmanes sería más correcto- de todos los colores y particularmente de los que habían hecho una profesión de vampirizar a los palestinos y medrar a costa de sus desgracias; también en Irán (y eso que estaban en plena euforia revolucionaria), en Iraq, En Siria...

Había visto ya mucho, pero sentí un sobresalto en el estómago, un ánsia física de vómito, cuando ví a aquél individuo con su cara de sapo y su kefiyh cuidadosamente dispuesto, hacer el saludo de la victoria en las horas previas a embarcarse rumbo a Túnez con sus sicarios, bajo bandera de la ONU, escoltado -gran ironía y no precisamente poética- por barcos de guerra franceses. Atrás dejaba miles de muertos, un Líbano exángue, un pueblo, su puebblo, sin sitio a donde ir, exprimido por sus líderes y abandonado a su suerte.

Desde entonces, sólo he visto a ese asesino y dictador de (literalmente) mala muerte entregarse con fruicción al arte de manipular al prójimo y mandar a los más manipulados a morir y matar por él. Como me dijo una vez un médico palestino en Beirut: "Si Arafat hubiera sido alemán, hubiera sido Hitler; si hubiera sido ruso, Stalin; si hubiera sido americano, hubiera sido Al Capone".

Pero es que esta vez ha sobrepasado todos los bornes y, por fin, le ha pillado su propia gente. El día 17, Al-Jazeera ha publicado la sentencia de muerte política de ese indeseable. El resumen es simple:

Hace un año, Egipto se ofreció a vender cemento a la Autoridad Palestina a un precio simbólico de 12 a 15 US$/tonelada para apoyar la economía palestina y reparar las viviendas y edificios públicos destruidos por las incursiones de los bulldozers israelíes. Bello ejemplo de solidaridad entre hermanos árabes...

Pero el cemento no fue utilizado para noble fin. Unas empresas de paja de prohombres palestinos próximos al dictador, en lugar de llevar el cemento a la desolada zona de Gaza, lo llevaron a la ciudad israelí de Ashkelon. El hombre de paja principal de la operación, Jamal Tarifi, obtuvo unos beneficios de unos 9 millones de US$ revendiendo el cemento a los contratistas israelíes contratados para construir el muro de separación a 100 US$/tonelada. Jamal Tarifi es hermano del ministro de Asuntos Civiles de la Autoridad Palestina e íntimo de Arafat, Jamil Tarifi. Arafat fue informado de la brillante operación comercial mediante un memorandum fechado el 11 de septiembre de 2003.

A la historia pertenece que la motivación para que los israelíes construyeran su muro fue proporcionada por la oleada de atentados suicidas contra la población inspirados, propiciados y organizados por el raïs Arafat. Y que los sicarios de Arafat han asesinado a varios palestinos por haber intentado mantener a sus familiar trabajando en las obras del muro.

Pero ahora llega otro escándalo. Desde que se cerró el acuerdo entre Arafat y los intermediarios para la venta del cemento a Israel, los atentados suicidas han cesado casi por completo. ¿Será que ya no son necesarios?

The Chinese Dilemma [EN]

2004-08-19T03:51:00.000+02:00

No matter what, I love the Chinese. I like their reflective art of living and their almost allergic repugnance to oxymoron when reasoning.

So, here you have a Chinese view on terrorism and terrorists that, someway, somehow, illustrates China’s peculiar dilemma in the NetWar. Now, go ahead, think Chinese and wonder: what is China’s dilemma? This one is particularly useful to Europeans who have had their perception, well, managed… Now, read this pearl of the official Xinhua agency and let your imagination fly into the near future. Did you know that there were 22 Chinese citizens locked up in Guantanamo? Come on, did you know it?

When is a terrorist not a terrorist?

www.chinaview.cn 2004-08-19 09:01:57

BEIJING, Aug. 19 (Xinhuanet) -- The US decision not to return the detained Chinese "East Turkistan" terrorists to China has sent out a wrong signal. US Secretary of State Colin Powell said last week the US has decided not to hand back the 22 Chinese Uygur terrorists currently held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He said the US will find a new destination for them.

Powell acknowledged that finding "new places" was not a simple matter.

Maybe the US secretary of state knew deep down that to relocate these Chinese suspects elsewhere beyond China is legally and morally ungrounded.

Undoubtedly, it is China, not other countries, that should bring to justice the Chinese "East Turkistan" forces, which made up part of the pervasive international terrorist network.

The "East Turkistan" forces are listed as terrorist by the UN Security Council and the United States. They have plotted more than 260 attacks inside Northwestern China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, killing 162 and wounding 440 to date.

Moreover, a mountain of evidences suggest the group has close links with al-Qaida, Taliban remnants, Chechen terrorist groups and other international terrorist cliques.

According to China's counter-terrorism agency, from February 2001 to September 2002, the president of the East Turkistan Information Centre (ETIC), Abudujelili Kalakash, trained its members in Xinjiang for terrorist activities.

In March 2003, Kalakash directed a field survey along the railway between Lanzhou in Gansu Province and Hami in Xinjiang in preparation for blowing up the line - one of many planned attacks.

The United States has been seriously concerned and remains on high alert, fearing terrorist activities against US targets both on home soil and abroad.

The US President George W. Bush once warned the world that they were either on the side of the United States or on the side of terrorists, following the attacks on September 11, 2001.

But when deciding not to send Chinese terrorists back to China, which side does the United States choose to be on?

Showing leniency to terrorists surely means non-leniency to innocents.

Undoubtedly, the US decision serves as a short-sighted move that will benefit none but the terrorists.

Possibly, Washington has a different classification on those who prefer to act secretly as they threaten the world with terror and fear. Is it, then, only those threatening US interests who are considered as real terrorists?

La guerre (asymetrique) qui ne dit pas son nom [FR]

2004-08-17T19:33:00.000+02:00

La guerre entre le terrorisme jihadiste et les démocraties ne fait que commencer. Ou plutôt, disons qu’elle se trouve encore à sa toute première phase. Les attentats de septembre 2001 contre le World Trade Center à New York et le Pentagone à Washington ont marqué un climax mondial et aussi, de la part des élites du monde démocratique, le début du processus d’acceptation du fait d’être en guerre. Mais quelle drôle de guerre ! Non seulement ne sommes-nous pas tout à fait surs de qui est l’ennemi mais, encore plus surprenant, il se trouve encore un nombre considérable d’hommes politiques, de journalistes et de membres de la société civile qui nient, par moments farouchement, que nous soyons en guerre du tout.

Or, oui, la déclaration de guerre eut bien lieu, tout officiellement, en 1998, lorsque un certain Osama bin Laden annonça, dans un arabe fleuri, « Depuis plus de sept ans, les Etats-Unis occupent les terres de l’Islam, sur le plus sacré de nos territoires, l’Arabie, pillant ses richesses, accablant ses dirigeants, humiliant son peuple, menaçant ses voisins, et utilisant ses bases, dans la péninsule, comme fer de lance pour lutter contre les peuples islamiques voisins. » En vertu de quoi, « tuer des américains et leurs alliés, tant civils que militaires, est une obligation individuelle pour tout musulman qui le peut, dans tout pays où c’est possible, jusqu’à ce que la mosquée Aqsa et la mosquée Haram soient délivrées de leur étreinte, et jusqu’à ce que leurs armées, fracassées et les ailes brisées, quittent les pays d’Islam, et soient incapables de menacer un musulman. »

Ah, mais c’est seulement aux américains qu’il en veut ! diront des âmes bien pensantes. Non, pas seulement. Il proclame aussi le droit et le devoir des musulmans de tuer les alliés des américains. Et, en bon stratège, il se réserve le droit de définir quel type de lien avec les américains peut être considéré une alliance, même si l’allié en question n’en est pas conscient. Au fait, la déclaration est signée par un Front islamique mondial pour le Jihad contre les Juifs et les Croisés. C’était voilà six ans… Qui est un juif pour ce monsieur? Qui un croisé?

Un premier exemple d’asymétrie.

Des individus cagoulés et armés jusqu’aux dents tiennent un pauvre homme effaré devant un caméra. L’un d’eux lui aboie de dire son nom et de bien tenir son passeport devant la poitrine.

Le prisonnier dit : « Je m’appelle Untel et suis citoyen de tel pays ».

L’un des cagoulés sort un énorme couteau et coupe la tête d’Untel pendant que des cris en off proclament la grandeur de Dieu.

Le journal Le Monde titre l’information : « Un citoyen de tel pays exécuté par la résistance iraquienne »
En tout il s’agit de vingt lignes terses et lointaines.

Peut-être manquent-ils d’espace parce, à côté ils ont un article à trois colonnes où des juristes (par exemple) parisiens s’indignent, ô combien ! à propos des conditions de détention dégradantes infligés aux prisonniers de Guantanamo.

Et moi, pendant un dîner très agréable, je demande à une amie juriste (parisienne) si elle pense que l’homicide dont a été victime Untel peut être appelé « exécution ». Elle me répond que, sans doute, oui, « puisqu’il a lieu par la décision d’une organisation ». Je rétorque que, si cela est vrai, lorsqu’une personne se fait tuer par la Mafia en Sicile, cela mériterait aussi l’appellatif d’exécution…. Silence, gorgée de vin, regard incomode, parlons de Michael Moore. En aucun cas serait-ce un assassinat.

Bon, je crois qu'ici, dans ce lien, il y a un cas très à propos...

[à suivre]

A Primer in Propaganda and Perception Hijacking [EN] & [ES]

2004-08-17T00:34:00.000+02:00

Click For Michael Moore

So, you just wonder WHY Fahrenheit 9/11 had such a strong impact on you?

I'll try to tell you very soon...

Learn about Michael Moore's illustrious predecessors: Einsenstein, Leni Rifensthal, Roman Karmen!

Take a trip to the secrets of Transfer, Calling Names, Glittering Generalities, Card-Decking and other fascinating tools of the kraft of raping other people's minds.

Discover the subtilities of brain washing! Try it with your friends and foes!

Coming Soon To This Blog!!!

¿Te preguntas POR QUÉ Fahrenheit 9/11 te ha impactado tanto?

Intentaré contartelo muy pronto...

¡Entérate de los ilustres predecesores de Michael Moore's: Einsenstein, Leni Rifensthal, Roman Karmen!

¡Participa en un apasionante viaje a los secretos de la Transferencia, Calling Names, Glittering Generalities,Mazo de Cartas y otras fascinantes herramientas del arte de violar la mente del prójimo!

¡Descubre las sutilezas del lavado de cerebro! ¡Pruébalo con tus amigos y enemigos!

¡¡¡ MUY PRONTO EN ESTE BLOG !!!

Let's start with a definition:

Perception management is a term invented by the U. S. military. This is the U. S. Department of Defense (DOD) definition:

perception management-- Actions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning as well as to intelligence systems and leaders at all levels to influence official estimates, ultimately resulting in foreign behaviors and official actions favorable to the originator’s objectives. In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations security, cover and deception, and psychological operations.

Note that it takes a military writer to limit the concept to actions exclusively reserved to “foreign audiences”. In our global times one can have some difficulty to clearly define what is “foreign”; not so audiences, which are more real than ever.

Perception management, as defined by the DOD would appear to include propaganda ("a specific type of message presentation, aimed at serving an agenda") as well as other activities. It is clear from the definition that unlike Public diplomacy, perception management is specifically intended to include the use of deception; that is, perception management is not supposed to be limited to the dissemination of truthful information.

As of 2004, the phrase "perception management" is filtering into civilian use as a trendy synonym for "persuasion." Public relations firms now offer "perception management" as one of their services. Similarly, officials who are being accused of shading the truth are now frequently charged with engaging in "perception management."

Now, what about dear Michael Moore?

This NetWar of Ours [EN]

2004-08-16T16:16:00.001+02:00

The buzz-word is loose-knit and then a few semantic horrors like organizational, empowerment to embellish the countless pages written about this war. Yet, can we win a war when one has first of all prove that it does exist? A sizable share of our enlightened elites will even deny its existence. Who are we, after all? The West? The USA+Europe+Japan three-legged organizers? Or the ones who can eat to their hearts’ content? Or the ones who can afford to vote, say, write, read and watch what they please?
And, above all, who is the enemy?
Well, the current conflict started one day six years ago when a repentant sinner called Osama declared war upon Christians and Jews. So, I was a Christian, after all; to the astonishment of my neighborhood’s priest, I am a Christian. That's why that bearded zealot declared war on me: surrender or die. And he says that they (he and his buddies) will prevail over us (Christians and Jews and don't forget the Idolatrous) because we love life and they love death. And they are sort of winning, I’m afraid. And a sizable portion of people among us want them (i.e. Osama and his buddies) to win; or perhaps I’d better say they want our side to lose. So, its us and them, our side, their side. Again.

And dear old Spain now has a prime minister that I’m not sure if he’s Chamberlein or Petain or Quisling or perhaps, after all, a nightmarish ghoulish postmodern version of Baron Samedi with a marketing degree. And France got a president that just pretends he doesn’t see, because he needs to keep the job in order nor to be convicted of misuse of public funds... Where are you, Tocqueville? And Arafat's cronies sell 400,000 tones of cement to Sharon to build that wall of his. And somewhere in the distance a doctor tells mothers in Nigeria no to vaccinate their children against polio because the vaccine contains a poison that makes Muslim little girls infertile. An American conspiracy, you know. Anyway, better crippled for life than saved by the unbeliever's science.

Welcome to the end of History, mind you, go and get yourself a gun, if you happen to know how the weapon to win this one looks like, and meet me in the info-sphere. John Arquilla is already there (mixing up the medicine, Dylan'd say) and Qiao-Liang is sharpening his pencil.

In any event, here you have the link to Arquillas The Advent of Netwar

La responsabilidad de Rumsfeld y la ministra española [ES]

2004-08-15T20:16:00.000+02:00

Como soy de orígen español, amo a España y tengo debilidad por los españoles.

Es cierto que tantos años fuera de aquél querido país, la influencia de las culturas anglosajona, escandinava y francesa y el consumo inmoderado de Kentucky Fried Chicken me han convertido en un perfecto híbrido global pero, bueno, las raíces son las raíces y sigo todo lo que pasa en España lo más de cerca posible.

Hasta los atentados del 11 de marzo de este año, España estaba gobernada por el proamericano José María Aznar, un arquetipo de hidalgo de Castilla la Vieja con bastante más fe que tolerancia. Pero tras el mayor atentado en muchos años en Europa, que costó la vida en Madrid a 200 personas tres días antes de las elecciones, los terroristas de al Qaeda consiguieron su objetivo de que el sr. Aznar perdiera la votación, y fuera substituido por un socialista, José Rodríguez-Zapatero, que había prometido retirar el millar y medio de soldados españoles presentes en Iraq en la coalición amorosamente tejida por el presidente george W. Bush.

Zapatero, de buen aspecto físico y un instinto certero para el marketing, ha encauzado su gobierno hacia la hiper-corrección política y el antiamericanismo militante. Así, el actual gobierno español está compuesto por 50% de mujeres y 50% de hombres. Es posible incluso que las identidades sexuales de los españoles estén también convenientemente representadas entre los ministros españoles y puede que, vista la ejecutoria hasta ahora, también la escala de coeficientes intelectuales de la población. En lo que seguro que hay unanimidad es en declararse furiosamente contrarios al imperialismo unilateralista americano -flagelo de los pueblos, ya se sabe- y muy particularmente de George W. Bush, que es un cowboy ignorante como todos sabemos. Así, si ahora mismo España es probablemente el país más antiamericano de Europa, su gobierno lo es con toda seguridad. Y la prensa está más o menos en la onda del gobierno...

Miren, no es cierto que la prensa de Madrid sea a priori peor que el periódico local de Topeka, Ks. De hecho, haber padececido los ardores patrióticos de Kox es una forma de graduarse en materia de exaltación ridícula, por lo que los noticiarios de las cadenas españolas no deberían llamar la atención. Pues bien, cuando se trata de cubrir noticias americanas, particularmente las referentes al Querido Tejano de la Casa Blanca o sus cómplices, los medios de prensa españoles entran en una especie de delirio totalmente único, incluso en el contexto la prensa europea. Eso lo pudo comprobar hace unas semanas nuestro inimitable Donald Rumsfeld.

Estaba el admirado Rumsfeld en Singapoore, defendiendo la civilización occidental un rato, cuando se le ocurrió dar una conferencia de prensa (créanlo o no, es muy bueno en esa actividad) en un barco de la marina americana, cuadro bastante adecuado para los tiempos que vivimos. Allí, entre otras maravillas de su pensamiento, expresó que quizá el malvado Osama Bin Laden trataría de lograr un atentado en tierra americana antes de la elección presidencial de Noviembre. Movido por su comprobado anhelo didáctico, dijo que podríamos temernos una salvajada como la del atentado en marzo contra los trenes en Madrid o la masacre de la dicoteca en Bali.

Nada nuevo bajo el sol. El único que era nuevo era el enviado especial de la agencia de noticias española EFE (*) asistente a la conferencia, que consiguió poner poner su pabellón en la cima del Everest del Dubious Journalistic Achievement.

El caso es que ese peculiar genio del periodismo mandó a Madrid una crónica en la que citaba al querido Rumsfeld diciendo que iba a haber atentados de al-Quaeda en España y Bali antes de las elecciones americanas. Auténtico. Se lo juro por San Pulitzer.

Los más bondadosos dicen que un periodista-funcionario(*), español, norcoreano o laotiano, enviado a una conferencia de prensa del secretario de defensa del imperialismo no tiene por qué saber inglés y menos el inglés del sr. Rumsfeld. A fin de cuentas, las leyes de Murphy son de aplicación obligada en los medios de comunicación estatales, parte de su identidad. Los fascistoides lacayos del imperialismo asegurarán que el periodista de la agencia EFE estaba haciendo méritos para ascender y que era sólo el exponente de la calidad del gobierno que le paga. Los ecuánimes comentaristas como yo decimos que la verdad puede estar en algún punto intermedio.

Pero lo mejor viene ahora...

La señora Doña María Teresa Fernández de la Vega, vicepresidenta del gobierno español, dama enérgica, especie de Sra. Thatcher izquierdista, en cuanto leyó la crónica del periodista-funcionario no dudó- No necesitó llamar a ningún embajador, cónsul o lo que España tenga en Singapoore. Tampoco le pareció conveniente ver qué decían AP, Reuters y los demás sicarios mediáticos del capitalismo anglosajón. Rápidamente llamó al periodista-funcionario de servicio y dijo:

"El señor Rumsfeld, secretario de defensa de los Estados Unidos es un irresponsable. ¡Mira que decir que va a haber atentados de al-Quaeda en España este verano!"

De inmediato los periodistas-funcionarios empezaron a sacar artículos diciendo que a lo mejor el pérfido e irresponsable Rumsfeld quería perjudicar la principal industria española, el turismo...

Y ahora viene la deliciosa historia personal. Actualmente vivo en Francia, lo que es una bendición en muchos sentidos, pero me expone a las llamadas de amigos y colegas americanos que necesitan citar a un experto en algo u obsevador, vagamente residente en la Unión Europea. Así que me llamó un amigo y viejo compinche de borracheras que trabaja para el pool de Knight R. en Washington y me dijo:

"J.A., tú naciste en España, ¿no? ¿sigues lo que sucede allí?"

"Sí, más o menos"

"Oye, hay una ministra española que cita unas declaraciones de Rumsfeld que no vienen en el record por ninguna parte. Y ha dicho que es un irresponsable."

Y me contó que la señora aquella había dicho que Runsfeld había dicho lo que nadie más decía que hubiera dicho.

Es verdad que mi opinión sobre la responsabilidad del sr. Rumsfeld ha conocido altibajos, pero decir que es un irresponsable, así, tan tajante... me resultaba un poco fuerte. Por lo cual le dije a mi amigo que lo dejara de mi cuenta, le expliqué que en Europa eran las 3 am (**) y que al día siguiente haría unas llamadas a Madrid, a ver qué había del asunto.

"J.A., te lo agradezco en el alma. Creo que hemos agarrado al DOD en una ocultación de información relevante."

Al día siguiente llamé a un par de amigos de Madrid y estos me expresaron su sorpresa (agradable) de que la señora ministra supiera quién era Donald Rumsfeld y me dijeron que no le diera demasiada importancia. Que era una dama bastante más temperamental que informada y que verían a ver de dónde salía el asunto. Dos horas después mi informante desde Madrid lloraba de risa contándome la historia del enviado especial de EFE y las declaraciones de la vicejefa del gobierno español.

Cuando llamé a mi amigo a Washington estaba excitadísmo.

"Los hemos agarrado, J.A., los tenemos. Rumsfeld ha escondido información al record, al pueblo americano, a nosotros y quizá al propio GWB. Rumsfeld lo niega todo y el Departamento de Estado ha puesto en marcha a George Argyros (embajador USA en Madrid), a ver si Powell se hace con su cabeza".

Le dije que calmara sus ímpetus. Le expliqué, como pude, lo que son y las peculiaridades de la agencia EFE, el Partido Socialista español y la señora en cuestión. Que finalmente aquello iba más allá de los (probablemente muchos) pecados del querido Donald.

Decepcionado, mi amigo me dijo que sin duda España era un país muy peculiar. Le contesté que era la patria de Salvador Dalí y Luis Buñuel.

La historia terminó con que la embajada USA en Madrid aclaró el asunto de que el enviado especial de EFE a la conferencia de Rumsfeld no conocía más allá de tres palabras en inglés (yes, number one, f***), dijo a la ministra que Rumsfeld no había dicho aquello, sino que había dicho lo otro, que era un caballero muy responsable y acompañaron sus decires con los cables del hilo en español de AP, Reuters y, por si acaso, AFP (Agence France Press). Con lo que todos contentos.

¿Todos? No. La señora ministra no creyó oportuno presentar sus excusas.

(*) Es preciso decir que la agencia EFE es propiedad del estado español y sus empleados son funcionarios pagados con dinero de los contribuyentes. Por supuesto, nadie debe pensar que eso pueda tener la más mínima influencia en la independencia de su cobertura noticiosa, pero yo sería un pésimo reportero si no hiciera mención de ello.

(**) La gente que vive en Washington, quizá por complejo de Roma imperial, parece que nunca acaban de entender lo de los husos horarios.

Bush, Kerry and the Hurricane [EN]

2004-08-15T19:46:00.000+02:00

O.K, Florida's 27 electoral votes are worth (literally) millions for both candidates to the White House. And then, at least for Mr. Bush, they justify taking a little risk that might well get him quite a few votes by looking brave and, why, yes, presidential.

So, the most bashed president in decades flew aboard of the Marine One chopper over smashed homes , uprooted trees and all the usual signs of Mother Nature’s wrath…

And he flew low and look presidential he did. Up to now, hurricane Charley has killed 13 people in Florida… $5 billion to $11 billion of damages, thousands homeless. So, he’d better look as convincingly presidential as possible over there.

I mean, look, Bush landed in Fort Myers and then flew (low) north over areas hardest hit by the hurricane, which packed winds of 145 mph (about 230 kmph). And, talking in terms dear to perception managers, when you hear that on the 6 pm news, it sounds and even looks risky, the journey of a heroic, concerned and assertive statesman.

Mr. Bush’s visit carries political significance… and balm over old sores.

1992 hurricane Andrew claimed 26 lives and caused nearly $20 billion in property losses. That was during Bush senior’s watch, mind you and to say that Floridians weren’t impressed with his response would be a nice understatement and a gruesome euphemism. The first President Bush was acrimoniously criticized for moving too unhurriedly to deliver food, water, and troops. Although he vastly outspent Bill Clinton in the following campaing, he was forced to a bitter fight to defend what once had been considered home turf, winning by a very small margin.

Not this time. Even before Hurricane Charley struck, the second President Bush, was flashing promises of federal money and swift relief action. And then he came to fly low into the Floridian hearts and (perhaps) minds.

Florida. 27 electoral votes and John Kerry leading by seven points according to the latest survey. Florida where the election 2000 was decided by, how many? 537 votes.

Meanwhile, John Kerry had to watch from the sidelines, probably ruminating about what one can do in a campaign when one is the President of the USA and about the millions of precious campaign dollars spent on looking presidential in front of Floridians before hurricane Charley came around.

What’ll happen to that 7% lead is everybody’s guess. The democratic hopeful couldn’t do much about it. He had to make do with a call to his supporters to volunteer in disaster relief efforts…

[Added on 08/15]

Kerry said he wouldn't visit the area immediately because he didn't want to divert police from helping in the recovery. Poor guy. There was that Spanish King, Phillip the 2nd, who, on news of his Armada more than half destroyed by bad seas on its way to invade England, sentenced: "I send my ships to battle men, not the elements". Well...

the European Social Capital Foundation - NEWS SERVER [EN]

2004-08-15T17:54:00.000+02:00

the European Social Capital Foundation - NEWS SERVER

This News Server comes very handy to keep apace with the News.

It's roughly based on the Google search engine but has a few tricks of its own. It works in English, French and Spanish...

Talking about languages: I intend to do some multilingual posting on this blog, so that I get some personal reward for maintaining it: preventing my main languages beyond dear English-lingua Franca from going rusty. So I'll identify the posts after the headline witn a simple code:

[EN] for English

[ES] for Español, Spanish

[FR] for Français, French

So, may the force be with me :-)

Hello World

2004-08-15T09:38:00.000+02:00

Well, Here comes my first post on the NetWar blog.

My idea is to provide comments, news and sources about the networked warfare, with some primary emphasis on the theoretical aspects and, subsequently on producing periodical geopolitical prognosis.

Pardon My English

2004-08-06T14:46:00.000+02:00

English isn't my mother tongue and I have been living in France for the last 10 years now, so my interferences sometimes produce some bizarre constructs.

I can get away with that when I write professionally, because there is always some charitable editor in the kitchen to put things right.

But, well, that’s the kind of luxury I can’t afford in this humble blog.

Nevertheless, as far as I can see, my English is good enough to make myself understood. And then, well, we all are seeing the development of Cyber-English, a new cosmopolitan parlance that is used and understood from Japan Westwards to San Francisco. That makes an extremely good case for my continuing to write this blog in English, since by vocation I am and want to be a global person, a son of my era.

So, long live Global Cyber-Pidgin!

While in Paris waiting for the spring to come, reading Saint Real

2004-02-20T01:18:00.000+01:00

I'm just trying to survive this cold freaky day without anything making it woth living. What a stupid day, my God!

So, I'll give up for a moment reading Pierra Hassner -that surgeon of post-modern evil monsters- and seek refuge (and advice) in the always rewarding Abbé de Saint Real, the stupendous De l'Usage de l'Histoire. I just got it through Ebay in a gorgeous edition by Pierre Mortier in Ansterdam, 1730...

After all, this book does make this day worth living!

Tomorrow I'll blog about what is going on in France in the aftermath of George W.'s visit to the EU capital. Pity Honest Jacques...